draft supplemental environmental impact statement...

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Southern California National Forests Land Management Plan Amendment

Appendix 3

Monitoring Alternatives

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Southern California National Forests Draft Supplemental Appendix 3 Land Management Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Statement

1

Alternative A – No Action _____________________________ Introduction The southern California Land Management Plans (LMP) consist of three interrelated parts that work together to facilitate the use of adaptive management and the development of management activities that will collectively move the national forests toward their desired outcome. Part 1 paints the picture of the vision and conditions desired in the long-term. Parts 2 and 3 contain, respectively, the strategic management direction and the guidance for designing actions and activities in order to make progress toward the vision and desired conditions described in Part 1.

Part 1 is the vision for the southern California national forests. It describes the national forests' uniqueness on a national and regional level. It describes the Forest Service's national goals, the roles and contributions that the national forests make (their niche), the desired conditions (36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219.11(b)) for the various landscapes within the national forests, and finally, the evaluation/monitoring indicators (36 CFR 219.11 (d)) that will be used to assess the progress made toward accomplishing the desired conditions.

Each of the desired conditions is linked to evaluation/monitoring questions. These questions are designed to evaluate the indicators of progress over time towards the desired conditions (outcomes). These, along with annual accomplishment indicators and implementation monitoring of design criteria constitute the land management monitoring plan (36 CFR 219.11(d) and 36 CFR 219.12(k)). Monitoring requirements are found in all three parts of the forest plans, which is summarized in Part 3 Appendix C of the LMP. Part 1 monitoring is focused on measuring movement toward desired conditions over the long-term. Part 2 documents individual program accomplishments and is reported annually. Finally, Part 3 measures how well project implementation follows forest plan direction. All three parts use an adaptive management approach designed to lead to continuous improvement in the national forests' environmental performance.

Part 1 Monitoring Monitoring and evaluation provide knowledge and information to keep the forest plan viable. Appropriate selection of indicators, and monitoring and evaluation of key results helps the Forest Service determine if the desired conditions identified in the forest plan are being met. Monitoring and evaluation also help the Forest Service determine if there should be changes to goals and objectives, or monitoring methods. Adaptive management is the foundation for planning and management. The planning regulations require that forest plans be revised every 10-15 years after LMP approval (36 CFR 219.10(g)). Forest plans need to be dynamic to account for changed resource conditions, such as large-scale wildland fire or listing of additional species under the Endangered Species Act; new information and science such as taking a systems approach, and changed regulation; and policies such as the Roads Analysis Policy. Monitoring and evaluation are critical to adaptive management. Other component parts include inventory, assessment, planning, and implementation. No single component can be isolated from the whole of adaptive management.


2

Monitoring and evaluation processes begin by identifying key questions Forest Service managers need to answer about forest plan implementation. Understanding the questions help to identify information needs, data collection designs, and tools needed to turn data into information and knowledge. Managers must also have a clear understanding of baseline conditions (current resource condition at the time of signing the ROD) versus desired conditions and the evaluation strategies that will help determine if movement towards desired conditions is occurring. Appropriate selection of indicators help assess resource status and trends, and progress towards meeting the desired conditions identified in the forest plan.

The aggregated outcome of project level work reflects progress towards achieving the desired conditions of the forest plan and the contribution to agencies priorities. This emphasizes the importance of using the National Strategic Plan desired conditions, goals and objectives that apply to the planning area in the forest plan and to use common criteria and indicators as appropriate in the forest plan. This approach will enable monitoring and evaluation efficiencies and provide critical information on the national forests' contribution to the agency’s mission, goals, and objectives (Table 1).


3

Table 1. Part 1 Monitoring Summary

Goal Monitoring Question Indicators Monitoring Action Data Reliability

Report Period (Years)

1.1 Has the forest made progress in reducing the number of acres that are adjacent to development within Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) defense zones that are classified as high risk?

Fire Hazard/Risk Use baseline acres from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis; subtracting the areas treated, and areas that are no longer WUI Defense Zone; and adding acres from areas that have reverted to high hazard and risk due to maintenance backlog, and areas that have become WUI Defense Zone due to development

Moderate 5

1.2.1 Is the forest making progress toward increasing the percentage of montane conifer forests in Condition Class 1?

Condition Class Use baseline acres of Montane Conifer, Fire Regime I, from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis that were in Condition Class 1; subtracting the areas that have not had mechanical treatment, prescribed under burning, or wildfire within the previous 35 years; and adding the areas that have been mechanically treated, areas that have had prescribed under burning, and areas that have had wildfire over the five year monitoring period

Moderate 5

1.2.2 Is the forest making progress toward maintaining or increasing the percentage of chaparral and coastal sage scrub in Condition Class 1?

Condition Class Use baseline acres of Chaparral, Coastal Sage Scrub, Gabbro, Serpentine, Closed-cone conifer, and Lower montane vegetation types, Fire Regime IV, from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis that were in Condition Class 1; subtracting the areas that have a return interval of disturbance that is less than 35 years over the five year monitoring period through mechanical treatment, prescribed under burning, and wildfire; and adding the areas that have not had mechanical treatment, prescribed under burning, or wildfire within the previous 35 years

Moderate 5

1.2.3 Has the forest been successful at maintaining long fire-free intervals in habitats where fire is naturally uncommon?

Veg. Type Extent Fire

Use baseline acres of Alpine and Subalpine, Desert woodlands, forests and scrub, and Bigcone Douglas-fir vegetation types, Fire Regime V, from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis that were in Condition Class 1; subtracting the areas that have a return interval of disturbance that is less than 200 years over the five year monitoring period through mechanical treatment, prescribed under burning, and wildfire; and adding the areas that have not had mechanical treatment, prescribed under burning, or wildfire within the previous 200 years

Moderate 5

2.1 Are the national forests' inventory of invasive plants and animals showing a stable or decreasing trend in acres of invasives?

Invasive Plants and Animals

Establish baseline acres of reported occurrences of invasive plant and animal species; subtracting the areas that have been effectively treated; and adding areas where new presence of invasive species has been reported

Moderate 5

3.1 Are trends in indicators and visitor satisfaction surveys indicating that the forest has provided quality, sustainable recreation opportunities that result in increased visitor satisfaction?

Visitor Satisfaction Use baseline scores in Visitor Satisfaction from National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) that occurred around the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans and comparing the five year NVUM Visitor Satisfaction scores

Moderate 5


4



3.2 Are trends in indicators and visitor satisfaction surveys depicting the forest has provided solitude and challenge in an environment where human influences do not impede the free play of natural forces?

Natural Processes Baseline scores in Visitor Satisfaction for Wilderness from NVUM that occurred around the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans and compare the five year NVUM Visitor Satisfaction scores for Wilderness; national reporting systems for management actions in wilderness; and accomplishment data related to the National 10-year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge

Moderate 5

Wilderness Compare the acres of Wilderness from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis with the five year GIS acres

Moderate 5

4.1a Has the forest been successful at protecting ecosystem health while providing mineral and energy resources for development?

Energy Success at protecting Ecosystem Health

Compare the number of mineral and energy development projects proposed with those approved to establish a baseline of impacts to resources; Compare the number of acres of habitat conserved as part of mitigation for mineral and energy development projects

Moderate 5

4.1b Has the forest been successful at protecting ecosystem health while providing renewable resources for development?

Renewable Resources Success at protecting Ecosystem Health

Compare the number of renewable resource projects proposed with those approved to establish a baseline of impacts to resources; Compare the number of acres of habitat conserved as part of mitigation for renewable resource projects

Moderate 5

4.2 Are designated utility corridors being fully utilized prior to designation of new corridors serving similar market needs?

Utility Corridors Comparing the number of Utility Corridors from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis with the five year number

Moderate 5

5.1 Is the forest making progress toward sustaining Class 1 watershed conditions while reducing the number of Condition Class 2 and 3 watersheds?

Sustaining Class 1 watershed conditions while reducing the number of Condition Class 2 & 3 watersheds

Compare baseline number of watersheds in each Condition Class from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis with the five year Watershed Condition Assessment

Moderate 5

5.2 Is the forest making progress toward reducing the number of streams with poor water quality or aquatic habitat conditions?

Stream Condition - in Impaired State listed 303(d) streams

Compare the number of streams listed as impaired from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis with the five year number

Moderate 5

6.1 Is forest rangeland management maintaining or improving progress towards sustainable rangelands and ecosystem health by increasing the number of key areas in good and fair condition?

Rangeland Condition Compare baseline percent of Key Areas in active allotments meeting or moving towards desired conditions from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis with five year percent

Moderate 5

6.2 Are trends in resource conditions indicating that habitat conditions for fish, wildlife, and rare plants are in a stable or upward trend?

MIS Use baseline MIS habitat condition from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis and compare the existing MIS habitat condition on the southern California National Forests

Moderate 5


5



7.1 Is the forest balancing the need for new infrastructure with restoration opportunities or land ownership adjustment to meet the desired conditions?

Road Density Inventories

Calculate the miles of road divided by the acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands and compare from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis

Moderate 5

Road Miles Compare the miles of authorized and administrative roads from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis with five year assessment

Moderate 5

Land Ownership Complexity

Calculate the miles of exterior and interior boundary divided by the acres of NFS lands and compare from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis

Moderate 5


1

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Evaluation and Reports Evaluation is more than reporting facts and figures. Forest plan evaluation tells how decisions have been implemented, how effective the implementation has proved to be in accomplishing desired conditions, what was learned along the way, and how valid management assumptions are that led to forest plan decisions. Monitoring and adaptive management should lead to improved implementation and resource conditions.

The Forest Supervisor maintains monitoring information, including internet-based reports, for public reviews, and evaluates such information on a periodic basis to determine, among other things, need for amendment or revision of the forest plan. Formal evaluation and reporting occurs every five years, unless the Forest Supervisor deems it necessary that a shorter timeframe is warranted for some evaluations. The five-year review provides a comprehensive evaluation of information in response to monitoring questions and regulatory review requirements.

Part 2 Monitoring Monitoring in Part 2 of the forest plan is focused on program implementation including inventory. The national forests currently use the budget formulation and evaluation system (BFES) performance indicators for tracking program accomplishments. The current system is expected to be replaced by a performance accountability system integrating annual budgets with programs of work and linking these to tracking of strategic plan performance indicators (Table 2). Table 2. Part 2 Monitoring Summary

Indicators Data Reliability

Measuring Frequency (Years)


Acres of Terrestrial Habitat Enhanced High 1 1 Miles of Aquatic Habitat Enhanced High 1 1 Acres of Noxious Weeds Treated High 1 1 Acres of Vegetation Improved (also see Hazardous Fuels Reduction) High 1 1

Acres of Watershed Improved High 1 1 Acres of Land Ownership Adjusted High 1 1 Number of Heritage Resources Managed to Standard Mod 1 1 Products Provided to Standard (Interpretation and Education) Mod 1 1

Recreation Special Use Authorizations Administered to Standard Mod 1 1

People At One Time (PAOT) Days Managed to Standard (Developed Sites) Mod 1 1

Recreation Days Managed to Standard (General Forest Areas) Mod 1 1

Land Use Authorizations Administered to Standard Mod 1 1 Number of Mineral Operations Administered High 1 1 Manage Grazing Allotments High 1 1 Acres of Hazardous Fuel Reduction High 1 1 Miles of Passenger Car Roads Maintained to Objective Maintenance Level High 1 1

Miles of High Clearance & Back Country Roads Maintained to Objective Maintenance Level High 1 1

Miles of Road Decommissioned High 1 1 Miles of Trail Operated and Maintained to Standard Mod 1 1


2

Actual performance is tracked over time through annual documentation of accomplishment and these trends are evaluated periodically to determine if the national forests need to shift program strategies. These data are reported in the annual monitoring and evaluation report as part of the national forests' implementation monitoring efforts.

Additional forest-specific monitoring questions are included in Part 2 of the forest plan for the San Bernardino National Forest. These two questions are:

Outcome Evaluation Question(s): Is pebble plain habitat being conserved over the long-term through the implementation of conservation strategies? Are resource conditions at pebble plain complexes indicating a stable or upward trend towards meeting desired conditions? Outcome Evaluation Question(s): Is carbonate habitat being conserved over the long-term through the implementation of the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy (CHMS) actions?

Part 3 Monitoring Implementation and effectiveness monitoring for Part 3 of the forest plan are conducted at the project level. All project activities are documented in reporting systems. Annually, a randomly selected sample of projects and on-going activities (at least 10 percent) are reviewed. A small review team visits the selected projects to review the effectiveness of applying forest plan design criteria. If problems in implementation are detected, or if the design criteria are determined to be ineffective, then the team recommends corrective actions. Corrective actions may include forest plan amendment(s) if necessary to improve the effectiveness of the design criteria. Results of this monitoring are reported annually in the forest plan monitoring and evaluation report. In addition, design criteria (including new laws or regulations referenced in Appendix A) are updated (Table 3). Table 3. Part 3 Monitoring Summary Activity, Practice Or

Effect To Be Measured

Monitoring Question Indicators Data Reliability

Measuring Frequency

(Years)


Sample of ongoing activities and projects.

Are projects being implemented consistent with forest plan direction? How well have objectives been met and how closely have management standards and guidelines been applied?

Project Design Criteria

Mod 1 1

Assigned sample of ground disturbing activities for Best Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP) monitoring.

Are projects being implemented consistent with forest plan direction? Have project mitigation measures been effective at improving environmental conditions as expected?

Best Management Practices

Mod 1 1

Since the Records of Decision were signed in 2006, the four forests have implemented the LMPs to varying degrees including monitoring and evaluation. The inventory of invasive plants and animals for Forest Goal 2.1 – Invasive Species has not been implemented due to shifts in direction and lack of funding. The workload associated with the inventory has been determined to be infeasible due to the limited management effectiveness and changing condition of invasive plants and animals across the forests. The four forests have instead evaluated the effectiveness


3

of treatments and the movement toward desired conditions through the cumulative effect of treatments. Additionally, the four forests have not reviewed a randomly selected sample of on-going activities (at least 10 percent), but have reviewed a fixed number of certain types of activities each year as follows:

1. List all ongoing projects and activities as identified in INFRA and SUDS. 2. The following guideline are used for the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San

Bernardino National Forests in the random selection of 10 percent on ongoing projects: • Recreation sites = 2 campgrounds, 2 Recreation special use areas (i.e. Recreation

Residence Tract, Organizational Camp), 1 trail head, and 1 minor recreation site (i.e. picnic area)

• Grazing allotments = coordinate with BMPEP monitoring • Road maintenance contracts = coordinate with BMPEP and RO INFRA Roads

monitoring • Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) roads, trails, and areas = 1 each • Non-recreation special use authorizations= 1-2

Alternative B – Proposed Action _______________________ Introduction Effective land management plan monitoring and evaluation helps the Forest Service improve its management of America’s national forests. Monitoring and evaluation identifies the need to adjust desired conditions, goals, objectives, standards and guidelines as forest conditions change. Monitoring and evaluation helps the Forest Service and the public determine how a land management plan is being implemented, whether plan implementation is achieving desired outcomes, and whether assumptions made in the planning process are valid. Land management plans need to be dynamic to account for changed resource conditions, such as large-scale wildland fire or listing of additional species under the Endangered Species Act; new information and science such as taking a systems approach; and changes in regulations and policies.

Monitoring requirements are found in all three parts of the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino National Forest LMPs. In Part 1 monitoring is focused on measuring movement toward desired conditions over the long-term. Part 2 describes individual program accomplishments and is reported annually. Finally, Part 3 measures how well project implementation follows direction in the Southern California Land Management Plans. All three parts use an adaptive management approach designed to lead to continuous improvement in the National Forests' environmental performance. The LMPs comply with the requirements of the 1982 planning regulations. The establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements for plan implementation are met through this amendment to the LMP (36 CFR 219.11(d) and 36 CFR 219.12(k) [1982]). Planning regulations require that land management plans be revised every 10 to 15 years after initial approval (36 CFR 219.10(g) [1982]).


4

Monitoring and evaluation are part of the adaptive management cycle (Figure 1) and are separate, sequential activities that provide information to determine whether programs and

projects are meeting LMP direction. Monitoring collects information, on a sample basis, from sources specified in the LMP. Evaluation of monitoring results is used to determine the effectiveness of the LMP and whether amendments or revisions to the plans are needed. With these tools, information is collected and compiled to serve as reference points for the future; new scientific understanding and technology, changes in law and policy and resource conditions, growing concerns, trends and changing societal values are incorporated into land management planning; and the scientific validity and appropriateness of assumptions used in the development of land management plans are evaluated. In short, they breathe life into a static document, making it dynamic, relevant, and useful. Other component parts include inventory, assessment, planning, and implementation. No single component can be isolated from the whole of adaptive management.

Types of Monitoring Several kinds of activities can be referred to as "monitoring." These include:

• Programmatic monitoring, which tracks and evaluates trends of ecological, social, or economic outcomes.

• Project implementation monitoring, which monitors compliance with the Southern California Land Management Plans standards and guidelines.

• Effectiveness monitoring, which evaluates how effective our management actions are at achieving desired outcomes.

• Validation monitoring, which verifies assumptions and models used in Southern California Land Management Plans implementation.

• Other monitoring that may address issues for large geographic areas of which a forest or grassland is a part.

Figure 1. The Adaptive Cycle


5

Two other types of "monitoring" are not appropriate for inclusion in the monitoring chapter of the LMP. These are:

• Tracking or development of administrative reports (such as plans for protection of historic sites, interpretive plans, plans to inventory a particular resource, or conservation strategies).

• Tracking specific program outputs (such as miles of trail maintained, recreation visitor days, cubic feet of timber harvested, or acres of prescribed burn accomplished).

Tracking outputs can be referenced using general terms in the LMP and may be included in the annual monitoring plan or annual monitoring and evaluation report (as discussed below regarding annual indicators), because they are an important measure of how the Forest Service uses funds and are important to the public.

Part 1 Monitoring Monitoring and evaluation provide knowledge and information to keep the LMP viable. Appropriate selection of indicators, and monitoring and evaluation of key results helps the Forest Service determine if the desired conditions identified in the LMP are being met. Monitoring and evaluation also help the Forest Service determine if changes should be made to goals and objectives, or monitoring methods. The aggregated outcome of project-level work reflects progress towards achieving the desired conditions of the LMP and the contribution to Forest Service priorities. This emphasizes the importance of using the National Strategic Plan desired conditions, goals and objectives that apply to the planning area in the LMP and to use common criteria and indicators as appropriate. This approach will enable monitoring and evaluation efficiencies and provide critical information on the contribution of the southern California national forests to the Forest Service’s mission, goals, and objectives.

Monitoring and evaluation processes begin by identifying key questions Forest Service managers need to answer about land management plan implementation. Managers must also understand baseline conditions (that is, the resource conditions that were present when the record of decision was signed) versus desired conditions, and the evaluation strategies that will help determine if movement towards desired conditions is occurring. Current conditions of key environmental indicators are identified in the FEIS along with projected trends. Actual trends in key environmental indicators are used to measure changes over time as the basis for determining when a need for change is indicated. Monitoring is the method for adapting to change and to more easily amend and eventually revise land management plans in order to achieve desired conditions while ensuring healthy national forests exist for future generations.


6

Table 4. Part 1 Monitoring Summary

Goals Monitoring Question Indicators Monitoring Action Data Reliability


1.1 Has the forest made progress in reducing the number of acres that are adjacent to development within Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) defense zones that are classified as high risk?

Acres of High Hazard and High Risk in WUI Defense Zone

Use baseline acres from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis; subtracting the areas treated, and areas that are no longer WUI Defense Zone; and adding acres from areas that have reverted to high hazard and risk due to maintenance backlog, and areas that have become WUI Defense Zone due to development

Moderate 5

1.2 Has the forest been successful at reducing mortality risk?

Mortality Risk Assessment

Compare the annual National Insect and Disease Risk Map (NIDRM) data and cross referencing mortality within the reporting period and compare every five years

Moderate 5

1.2.1 Is the forest making progress toward increasing the percentage of montane conifer forests in Condition Class 1?

Departure from desired fire regime, acres by Fire Regime I

Use baseline acres of Montane Conifer, Fire Regime I, from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis that were in Condition Class 1; subtracting the areas that have not had mechanical treatment, prescribed under burning, or wildfire within the previous 35 years; and adding the areas that have been mechanically treated, areas that have had prescribed under burning, and areas that have had wildfire over the five year monitoring period

Moderate 5

1.2.2 Is the forest making progress toward maintaining or increasing the percentage of vegetation types that naturally occur in Fire Regime IV in Condition Class 1?

Departure from desired fire regime, acres by Fire Regime IV

Use baseline acres of Chaparral, Coastal Sage Scrub, Gabbro, Serpentine, Closed-cone conifer, and Lower montane vegetation types, Fire Regime IV, from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis that were in Condition Class 1; subtracting the areas that have a return interval of disturbance that is less than 35 years over the five year monitoring period through mechanical treatment, prescribed under burning, and wildfire; and adding the areas that have not had mechanical treatment, prescribed under burning, or wildfire within the previous 35 years

Moderate 5

1.2.3 Has the forest been successful at maintaining long fire-free intervals in habitats where fire is naturally uncommon?

Departure from desired fire regime, acres by Fire Regime V

Use baseline acres of Alpine and Subalpine, Desert woodlands, forests and scrub, and Bigcone Douglas-fir vegetation types, Fire Regime V, from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis that were in Condition Class 1; subtracting the areas that have a return interval of disturbance that is less than 200 years over the five year monitoring period through mechanical treatment, prescribed under burning, and wildfire; and adding the areas that have not had mechanical treatment, prescribed under burning, or wildfire within the previous 200 years

Moderate 5

2.1 Are the national forests' reported occurrences of invasive plants/animals showing a stable or decreasing trend?

Acres of treatments in reported occurrences

Establish a baseline for the acres of reported occurrences of invasive plant and animal species; subtracting the areas that have been effectively treated; and adding areas where new presence of invasive species has been reported

Moderate 5


7



3.1 Are trends in indicators and visitor satisfaction surveys indicating that the forest has provided quality, sustainable recreation opportunities that result in increased visitor satisfaction?

Visitor Satisfaction (National Visitor Use Monitoring)

Use baseline scores in Visitor Satisfaction from NVUM that occurred around the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans and comparing the five year NVUM Visitor Satisfaction scores

Moderate 5

3.2 Are trends in indicators and visitor satisfaction surveys depicting the forest has provided solitude and challenge in an environment where human influences do not impede the free play of natural forces?

Wilderness Condition Use baseline scores in Visitor Satisfaction for Wilderness from NVUM that occurred around the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans and compare the five year NVUM Visitor Satisfaction scores for Wilderness; national reporting systems for management actions in wilderness; and accomplishment data related to the National 10-year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge

Moderate 5

4.1a Has the forest been successful at protecting ecosystem health while providing mineral and energy resources for development?

Number of Mineral and Energy Development Projects Proposed and Approved

Compare the number of mineral and energy development projects proposed with those approved to establish a baseline of impacts to resources

Moderate 5

Minerals and Energy Success at protecting Ecosystem Health

Compare the number of acres of habitat conserved as part of mitigation for mineral and energy development projects

Moderate 5

4.1b Has the forest been successful at protecting ecosystem health while providing renewable resources for development?

Number of Renewable Resource Projects Proposed and Approved

Compare the number of renewable resource projects proposed with those approved to establish a baseline of impacts to resources

Moderate 5

Renewable Resources Success at protecting Ecosystem Health

Compare the number of acres of habitat conserved as part of mitigation for renewable resource projects

Moderate 5

5.1 Is the forest making progress toward sustaining Class 1 watershed conditions while reducing the number of Condition Class 2 and 3 watersheds?

Number of Watersheds in each Condition Class


Moderate 5

5.2 Is the forest increasing the proper functioning condition of riparian areas?

Change in Indicator Score for Aquatic Habitat, Aquatic Biota and Riparian Vegetation

Compare the change in score from the Watershed Condition Assessment indicators (Coordinate with Goal 5.1)

Moderate 5

6.1 Is forest rangeland management maintaining or improving progress towards sustainable rangelands and ecosystem health?

Percent of key areas in active allotments meeting or moving towards desired conditions

Compare baseline percent of Key Areas in active allotments meeting or moving towards desired conditions from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis with five year percent

Moderate 5

6.2 Are trends in resource conditions indicating that habitat conditions for

MIS Habitat Condition Use baseline MIS habitat condition from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis and compare the existing MIS

Moderate 5


8



fish, wildlife, and rare plants are in a stable or upward trend?

habitat condition on the southern California National Forests


Land Ownership Complexity

Calculate the miles of exterior and interior boundary divided by the acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands and compare from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis

Moderate 5

Authorized and Administrative Infrastructure

Establish a baseline number of authorized and administrative infrastructure from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis and comparing the existing authorized and administrative infrastructure on the National Forests

Moderate 5

Miles of Unauthorized Motorized Routes

Establish a baseline for the miles of unauthorized motorized roads and trails reported; subtracting the miles that have been decommissioned; and adding the miles of unauthorized motorized roads and trails that have been reported

Moderate 5


9

Land Management Plan Evaluation and Reports Evaluation is more than reporting facts and figures. Forest plan evaluation tells how decisions have been implemented, how effective the implementation has proved to be in accomplishing desired conditions, what was learned along the way, and how valid management assumptions are that led to LMP decisions. The Forest Supervisor will maintain monitoring information, including Internet-based reports, for public reviews, and will evaluate such information on a periodic basis to determine, among other things, need for amendment or revision of the LMP. Formal evaluation and reporting will occur every five years, unless the Forest Supervisor deems it necessary that a shorter timeframe is warranted for some evaluations. The five-year review will provide a comprehensive evaluation of information in response to monitoring questions and regulatory review requirements.

Part 2 Monitoring Monitoring identified in LMP Part 2 is focused on program implementation including inventory activities. The Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino National Forests currently use performance indicators for tracking program accomplishments. The current system tracks performance measures linked to the National Strategic Plan and reports accomplishments through a national reporting system. Although the system will evolve over time as technology changes, Table 5 represents the type of measures that are reported on an annual basis. The LMP further defines how inventory and reporting will be accomplished in Part 2 Appendix B - Program Strategies and Tactics:

• AM 1 - Land Management Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report the results of land and resource management plan monitoring and evaluation questions in the annual monitoring and evaluation report, including the actions taken to respond to new information learned through the adaptive management cycle.

• AM 2 - Forest-wide Inventory

Develop and maintain the capacity (processes and systems) to provide, store, and analyze the scientific and technical information needed to address agency priorities.

Table 5. Part 2 Monitoring Summary Indicators Data

Reliability Measuring

Frequency (Years) Report Period

(Years) Acres of Terrestrial Habitat Enhanced High 1 1 Miles of Aquatic Habitat Enhanced High 1 1 Acres of Noxious Weeds Treated High 1 1 Acres of Vegetation Improved (also see Hazardous Fuels Reduction)

High 1 1

Acres of Watershed Improved High 1 1 Acres of Land Ownership Adjusted High 1 1 Number of Heritage Resources Managed to Standard Moderate 1 1 Products Provided to Standard (Interpretation and Education)

Moderate 1 1

Recreation Special Use Authorizations Administered to Standard

Moderate 1 1


10

Indicators Data Reliability

Measuring Frequency (Years)


PAOT Days Managed to Standard (Developed Sites) Moderate 1 1 Recreation Days Managed to Standard (General Forest Areas)

Moderate 1 1

Land Use Authorizations Administered to Standard Moderate 1 1 Number of Mineral Operations Administered High 1 1 Number of Allotments Administered to Standard High 1 1 Acres of Hazardous Fuel Reduction High 1 1 Miles of Passenger Car Roads Maintained to Objective Maintenance Level

High 1 1

Miles of High Clearance & Back Country Roads Maintained to Objective Maintenance Level

High 1 1

Miles of Road Decommissioned High 1 1

Additional monitoring questions specific to each National Forest are included in Part 2 of the Southern California Land Management Plans.

These data are reported in the annual monitoring and evaluation report as part of the National Forest's implementation monitoring efforts. Annual monitoring and evaluation reports will document when there is a need to change the Southern California Land Management Plans in response to declining trends in resource conditions.

Part 3 Monitoring Implementation and effectiveness monitoring for Part 3 of the LMPs are conducted at the project level. Part 3 of the LMPs requires annual implementation monitoring of new projects and ongoing activities and sites. Project selection for monitoring will use the following protocol and will be reviewed and updated annually as needed.

As detailed in the LMPs, the Program Emphasis and Objectives describe the activities and programs on the Forests. Activities were organized into six functional areas, which include all areas of business for which the national forests are responsible. The functional areas collectively include 35 programs. National forest management uses the results to clearly communicate program capability both internally and externally. The six functional areas are:

• Management & Administration: National forest leadership, management and administrative support activities, communications, external affairs, community outreach, planning, human resources, information technology, and financial management.

• Resource Management: Activities related to managing, preserving, and protecting the national forest's cultural and natural resources.

• Public Use & Enjoyment: Activities which provide visitors with safe, enjoyable and educational experiences while on the national forest and accommodate changing trends in visitor use and community participation and outreach.

• Facility Operations & Maintenance: Activities required to manage and operate the national forest's infrastructure (i.e., roads, facilities, trails, and structures).

• Commodity & Commercial Uses: Grazing management, forest special product development, and activities related to managing non-recreation special-uses such as national forest access, telecommunications sites, and utility corridors.


11

• Fire & Aviation Management: Wildland fire prevention through education, hazardous fuels reduction, and proactive preparation. This program also includes on-forest wildland fire suppression, and national or international wildland fire and emergency incident response.

The Program Emphasis and Objectives will be used to stratify the new projects and ongoing activities and sties by functional areas.

New Projects All new projects implemented during the monitoring period, including projects that are implemented over multiple years, will be stratified into the appropriate functional areas. A new project should be randomly selected from each of the five functional areas that had new projects implemented during the monitoring period, excluding Management & Administration because new projects do not fall in this functional area. If there are a large number of new projects implemented within a functional area over the monitoring period then a larger number of new projects should be selected from that functional area.

Ongoing Activities and Sites All ongoing activities and sites will be stratified into the appropriate functional areas. Ongoing activities and/or sites should be selected from Public Use & Enjoyment, Facility Operations & Maintenance, and Commodity & Commercial Uses functional areas. As timing and funding permit, ongoing activities and/or sites should be randomly selected from each applicable sub-category in the three functional areas.

A review team will visit the selected projects and ongoing activities and sites to review the effectiveness of applying LMP design criteria. If problems in implementation are detected, or if the design criteria are determined to be ineffective, then the team will recommend corrective actions. Corrective actions may include amendments to the LMPs if necessary to improve the effectiveness of the design criteria. Results of this monitoring will be reported annually in the LMP monitoring and evaluation report. In addition, design criteria, including new laws or regulations referenced in Appendix A of the LMPs will be updated. Appendix A is comprised of all current and relevant statutes, regulations, executive orders and memorandums, and other management direction. Together, they provide overarching management direction for the LMPs. While the list may be periodically updated to better reflect the current status, new additions or deletions are automatically in effect as overarching direction.

Table 6: Part 3 Monitoring Summary Indicators Data Reliability Measuring Frequency (Years) Report Period (Years)

Design Criteria Moderate 1 1

Monitoring will be conducted through an interdisciplinary team examining documentation (NEPA or otherwise) for required mitigation measures including applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs), consultation requirements from US Fish & Wildlife Service and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and applicable guidance from the Southern California Land Management Plans. The team will validate whether the projects were implemented consistent with LMP direction, how well objectives were met and how closely standards and project mitigation measures improved environmental conditions. This monitoring will be completed in conjunction with other types of monitoring when efficient.


12

A comparison of expected results and actual results is needed to determine whether programs and projects are meeting LMP direction as part of the Adaptive Management Cycle.

It is anticipated that there will be a minimum of 8 new projects and ongoing activities and sites that will be validated each year.

If problems in implementation are detected, or if the design criteria are determined to be ineffective, then the team will recommend corrective actions. Corrective actions may include amendments to the LMPs if necessary to improve the effectiveness of the design criteria. Results of this monitoring will be reported annually in the LMP monitoring and evaluation report. As described above, design criteria, including new laws or regulations referenced in Appendix A of the LMP will be updated.


13

Alternative C – Extensive Monitoring ___________________ Introduction The Conservation Alternative was submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity on behalf of numerous national, state, and local environmental organizations, scientists, and technical experts throughout California during the forest plan revision that began in 2002. Alternative 6 was patterned after the Conservation Alternative; however, elements were modified to reflect a legal and implementable alternative that was presented in the same format as the other alternatives (FEIS pages 56-60). The establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements for plan implementation was an element that was common to all alternatives and are detailed in the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino National Forest LMP Part 3Appendix C. As part of the January 2, 2011 Stipulation of Dismissal and Order “the Forest Service will prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“SEIS”) that analyzes alternative monitoring protocols.” During scoping of the SEIS the Center for Biological Diversity resubmitted the Conservation Alternative in its entirety. In order to comply with the Settlement Agreement, the Conservation Alternative was modified to reflect a legal and implementable alternative that was presented in the same format as the other alternatives.

Alternative C follows the same general format as the Proposed Action Monitoring Alternative in so much as it has monitoring requirements that are associated with all three parts of the LMPs. In Part 1 monitoring is focused on measuring movement toward desired conditions over the long-term through monitoring questions. Part 2 describes individual program accomplishments and is reported annually. Finally, Part 3 measures how well project implementation follows direction in the LMPs. All three parts use an adaptive management approach designed to lead to continuous improvement in the four forests' environmental performance. Sufficient preliminary research and analysis are part of the adaptive management cycle that provides information to determine whether programs and projects are meeting LMP direction. Adaptive management will be tiered to monitoring and research. Evaluation of monitoring results is used to determine the effectiveness of the LMP and whether amendments or revisions to the plans are needed.

Part 1 Monitoring Monitoring and evaluation provide knowledge and information to keep the LMP viable. Appropriate selection of indicators, and monitoring and evaluation of key results helps the Forest Service determine if the desired conditions identified in the LMP are being met. Monitoring and evaluation also help the Forest Service determine if changes should be made to goals and objectives, or monitoring methods.

The aggregated outcome of project-level work reflects progress towards achieving the desired conditions of the forest plans and the contribution to Forest Service priorities. This emphasizes the importance of using the National Strategic Plan desired conditions, goals and objectives that apply to the planning area in the LMPs and to use common criteria and indicators as appropriate. This approach will enable monitoring and evaluation efficiencies and provide critical information on the contribution of the southern California national forests to the Forest Service’s mission, goals, and objectives.


14

Managers must understand baseline conditions versus desired conditions, and the evaluation strategies that will help determine if movement towards desired conditions is occurring. Monitoring is the method for adapting to change and to more easily amend and eventually revise land management plans in order to achieve desired conditions while ensuring healthy national forests exist for future generations. Baselines will be established over the first five years, then activities/treatments are tracked annually, and every five years the trends of management indicators related to desired conditions would be assessed.


15

Table 7: Part 1 Monitoring Summary




Acres of fuelbreaks constructed or maintained in WUI

Calculate the number of acres of fuelbreaks constructed or maintained in WUI and compare with the five year acres

Moderate 5

Acres of watershed treated in WUI

Calculate the number of acres of watershed treated in WUI and compare with the five year acres

Moderate 5

1.2 Has the forest restored forest health where alternations of natural fire regimes have put human and natural resource values at risk? Has the forest reduced the potential for widespread losses of montane conifer forests caused by severe, extensive, stand replacing fires? Has the forest reduced the number of acres at risk from excessively frequent fires while improving defensible space around communities? Has the forest maintained long fire-free intervals in habitats which are slow to recover?

Acres of vegetation treatment by condition class

Use Fire Return Interval Departure (FRID) baseline and compare acres of vegetation treatment by condition class over a five year interval

Moderate 5

Acres of prescribed and wildland fire by condition class

Use FRID baseline and compare acres of prescribed and wildland fire by condition class over a five year interval

Moderate 5

Mortality Risk Assessment Compare the annual NIDRM data and cross referencing mortality within the reporting period and compare every five years

Moderate 5

2.1 Has the forest reversed the trend of increasing loss of natural resource values due to invasive species?

Trend of non-native invasive species populations

Establish a sampling survey baseline of non-native invasive species populations and compare every five years

Moderate 5

Acres of non-native invasive species treatment or retreatment

Calculate the acres of non-native invasive species treatment or retreatment and compare with the five year acres

3.1 Has the forest provided for public use and natural resource protection?

Number of cultural sites recorded Report the number of cultural sites recorded and add the number recorded over the five year interval

Moderate 5

Miles of roads and trails in culturally sensitive areas

Use cultural sites report and compare the miles of road and trail in culturally sensitive areas, update and compare every five years

Moderate 5

Acres of recreation facilities in culturally sensitive areas

Use cultural sites report and compare the acres of recreation facilities in culturally sensitive areas, update and compare every five years

Moderate 5

Number of tribal coordination meetings

Report the number of tribal coordination meetings and compare with the five year number

Moderate 5

Number of recreation facilities by use type

Report the number of recreation facilities by use type and compare with the five year number

Moderate 5

Miles of public roads and trails Report the miles of public roads and trails by use type Moderate 5


16



by use type and compare with the five year miles Visitor Satisfaction Use baseline scores in Visitor Satisfaction from

NVUM that occurred around the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans and comparing the five year NVUM Visitor Satisfaction scores

Moderate 5

Miles of roads and trails in riparian areas and critical T&E habitat

Use roads and trails report and compare the acres in riparian areas and critical T&E habitat, update and compare every five years (Coordinate with Goal 7.1)

Moderate 5

Acres of recreation facilities in riparian areas and critical T&E habitat

Use recreation facilities report and compare the acres in riparian areas and critical/occupied T&E habitat, update and compare every five years

Moderate 5

Number of Recreation Residence cabin permits

Report the number of Recreation Residence cabin permits and compare with the five year number

Moderate 5

Acres of Recreation Residence tracts in riparian areas and critical T&E habitat

Use Recreation Residence cabin permits report and compare the acres in riparian areas and critical T&E habitat, update and compare every five years

Moderate 5

Number of Organizational Camp permits

Report the number of Organizational Camp permits and compare with the five year number

Moderate 5

Acres of Organizational Camps in riparian areas and critical T&E habitat

Use Organizational Camp permits report and compare the acres in riparian areas and critical/occupied T&E habitat, update and compare every five years

Moderate 5

Number of programs sponsored Report the number of programs sponsored and compare with the five year number

Moderate 5

3.2 Has the forest retained a natural evolving character within wilderness?

Wilderness Evaluation scores Use accomplishment data related to the National 10-year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge and compare with the five year scores

Moderate 5

Visitor Satisfaction Use baseline scores in Visitor Satisfaction for Wilderness from NVUM that occurred around the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans and compare the five year NVUM Visitor Satisfaction scores for Wilderness

Moderate 5

Acres of Wilderness Compare the acres of Wilderness from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis with the five year GIS acres

Moderate 5

4.1 Has the forest administered minerals and energy resource development while protecting ecosystem health? Has the forest administered renewable energy resource developments while protecting

Miles of authorized transmission and distribution powerlines/ gas lines

Report the miles of authorized transmission and distribution powerlines/ gas lines and compare with the five year miles

Moderate 5

Number of Transportation and Utility corridors

Report the number of Transportation and Utility corridors and compare with the five year number

Moderate 5


17



ecosystem health? Miles of authorized transmission and distribution powerlines/ gas lines in riparian areas and critical T&E habitat

Use authorized transmission and distribution powerlines/ gas lines report and compare the acres in riparian areas and critical T&E habitat, update and compare every five years

Moderate 5

Number of authorized oil and gas operations

Report the number of authorized oil and gas operations and compare with the five year number

Moderate 5

Acres of oil and gas operations in riparian areas and critical T&E habitat

Use authorized oil and gas operations report and compare the acres in riparian areas and critical T&E habitat, update and compare every five years

Moderate 5

Number of authorized plans of operation

Report the number of authorized plans of operation and compare with the five year number

Moderate 5

Acres of mining operations in riparian areas and critical T&E habitat

Use authorized plans of operation report and compare the acres in riparian areas and critical T&E habitat, update and compare every five years

Moderate 5

5.1 Has the forest improved watershed conditions through cooperative management?

Watershed Condition Class evaluation


Moderate 5

Miles of road decommissioned Report the miles of road decommissioned and compare with the five year miles

Moderate 5

Acres of watershed treated Report the acres of watershed treated and compare with the five year acres (Coordinated with Goal 1.1)

Moderate 5

Number of road and trail watercrossings by type

Use roads and trails report and compare the number of watercrossings by type and compare every five years

Moderate 5

Number of water extractions by watercourse

Report the number of water extractions by watercourse and compare with the five year number

Moderate 5

Number of TMDL listed waterbodies

Report the number of TMDL listed waterbodies and compare with the five year number

Moderate 5

Miles of roads and trails by soil type

Use roads and trails report and compare the miles by soil type and compare every five years

Moderate 5

5.2 Has the forest improved riparian conditions? Watershed Condition Class evaluation

Compare baseline number of watersheds in each Condition Class from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis with the five year Watershed Condition Assessment (Coordinate with Goal 5.1)

Moderate 5

Number of 303d listed watercourses

Compare the number of streams listed as impaired from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis with the five year number

Moderate 5

Number of CRMPs Report the number of CRMPs and compare with the Moderate 5


18



five year number Acres of primary song sparrow habitat

Establish a baseline acres of primary song sparrow habitat through vegetation type and compare with the five year acres (Coordinate with Goal 6.2)

Moderate 5

6.1 Has the forest moved toward improved rangeland conditions as indicated by key range sites?

Number of allotments Report the number of allotments and compare with the five year number

Moderate 5

Percent of key areas in active allotments meeting or moving towards desired conditions

Compare baseline percent of Key Areas in active allotments meeting or moving towards desired conditions from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis with five year percent

Moderate 5

6.2 Has the forest provided ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired non-native species?

Acres of primary Management Indicator/Focal Species habitat

Report acres of primary Management Indicator/Focal Species habitat through vegetation type and compare with the five year acres (Coordinate with Habitat Condition Assessment)

Moderate 5

Habitat Condition Assessment Use baseline MIS habitat condition from the 2006 Southern California Land Management Plans analysis and compare the existing MIS habitat condition on the southern California National Forests

Moderate 5

Number of listed species Report the number of listed species and compare with the five year number

Moderate 5

Acres of critical habitat Report the acres of critical habitat and compare with the five year acres

Moderate 5

Biological Opinion implementation monitoring

Report the actions taken as part of implementation monitoring for Biological Opinions

Moderate 5

Acres of habitat linkages Establish a baseline acres of habitat linkages through vegetation type and compare with the five year acres

Moderate 5

Miles of roads and trails in essential habitat linkages

Use roads and trails report and compare the acres of essential habitat linkages and compare every five years

Moderate 5

7.1 Has the forest retained natural areas as a core for a regional network while focusing the built environment into the minimum land area needed to support growing public needs?

Acres of prescribed and wildland fire

Report the acres of prescribed and wildland fire and compare with the five year acres (Coordinate with Goal 1.2)

Moderate 5

Mortality Risk Assessment Compare the annual NIDRM data and cross referencing mortality within the reporting period and compare every five years (Coordinate with Goal 1.2)

Moderate 5

Acres of vegetation treatment by condition class

Use FRID baseline and compare acres of vegetation treatment by condition class over a five year interval (Coordinate with Goal 1.2)

Moderate 5

Acres of prescribed and wildland Use FRID baseline and compare acres of prescribed Moderate 5


19



fire by condition class and wildland fire by condition class over a five year interval (Coordinate with Goal 1.2)

Acres of IRAs Report the acres of IRAs and compare with the five year acres

Moderate 5

Miles of roads and motorized trails in IRAs

Compare the miles of roads and motorized trails in IRAs and compare with the five year miles

Moderate 5

Number of RNA Management Plans

Report the number of RNA Management Plans and compare with the five year number

Moderate 5

Acres of land acquired Report the acres of land acquired and compare with the five year acres

Moderate 5

Number of communication sites Report the number of communication sites and compare with the five year number

Moderate 5

Miles of authorized water lines Report the miles of authorized water lines and compare with the five year miles

Moderate 5

Acres of authorized infrastructure in riparian areas and critical T&E habitat

Use authorized infrastructure report and compare the acres in riparian areas and critical T&E habitat, update and compare every five years

Moderate 5

Miles of authorized roads Report the miles of authorized roads and compare with the five year miles

Moderate 5

Miles of administrative roads Report the miles of administrative roads and compare with the five year miles

Moderate 5

Miles of Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) roads and trails

Report the miles of OHV roads and trails and compare with the five year miles

Moderate 5

Miles of Unauthorized Motorized Routes

Establish a baseline for the miles of unauthorized motorized roads and trails reported; subtracting the miles that have been decommissioned; and adding the miles of unauthorized motorized roads and trails that have been reported

Moderate 5

Miles of roads in riparian areas and critical T&E habitat

Use roads report and compare the acres in riparian areas and critical T&E habitat, update and compare every five years

Moderate 5


20

Land Management Plan Evaluation and Reports Evaluation is more than reporting facts and figures. Forest plan evaluation tells how decisions have been implemented, how effective the implementation has proved to be in accomplishing desired conditions, what was learned along the way, and how valid management assumptions are that led to LMP decisions. The Forest Supervisor will maintain monitoring information, including internet-based reports, for public reviews, and will evaluate such information on a periodic basis to determine, among other things, need for amendment or revision of the forest plans. Formal evaluation and reporting will occur every five years, unless the Forest Supervisor deems it necessary that a shorter timeframe is warranted for some evaluations. The five-year review will provide a comprehensive evaluation of information in response to monitoring questions and regulatory review requirements.

Part 2 Monitoring Monitoring identified in Part 2 of the LMP is focused on program implementation including inventory activities. The Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino National Forests currently use performance indicators for tracking program accomplishments. The current system tracks performance measures linked to the National Strategic Plan and reports accomplishments through a national reporting system.

The LMPs further define how inventory and reporting will be accomplished in Part 2 Appendix B - Program Strategies and Tactics:

AM 1 - Land Management Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report the results of land and resource management plan monitoring and evaluation questions in the annual monitoring and evaluation report, including the actions taken to respond to new information learned through the adaptive management cycle.

AM 2 - Forest-wide Inventory Develop and maintain the capacity (processes and systems) to provide, store, and analyze the scientific and technical information needed to address agency priorities.

Table 8: Part 2 Monitoring Summary

Requirement Monitoring Action Measuring Frequency (Years)


All projects will be monitored each year

Summary of the actions each year

1 1

Additional monitoring questions specific to each national forest are included in Part 2 of the LMP.

These data are reported in the annual monitoring and evaluation report as part of the national forest's implementation monitoring efforts. Annual monitoring and evaluation reports will document when there is a need to change the forest plans in response to declining trends in resource conditions.


21

Part 3 Monitoring Sufficient preliminary research and analysis for Part 3 of the LMP are conducted at the project level. Part 3 of the LMP requires annual implementation monitoring of new projects and ongoing activities and sites to determine if design criteria are being implemented and if there are cause and effect relationships. A comparison of expected results and actual results is needed to determine whether programs and projects are meeting LMP direction as part of the Adaptive Management Cycle. Table 9: Part 3 Monitoring Summary

Indicators Data Reliability Measuring Frequency (Years) Report Period (Years) Design Criteria Moderate 1 1

New Projects All new projects are analyzed as required by NEPA. Projects are designed to implement or be consistent with the LMP. Forest plan monitoring will occur as each project moves into implementation. The interdisciplinary team will document the implementation of design criteria and consistency with the LMP for 20% (approximately 22) of all new projects each year. It is assumed that 100% of new projects will be monitored over a 5 year period, and implementation monitoring will continue annually until a project is complete or it moves into an ongoing activities or site category.

Ongoing Activities and Sites Through the establishment of baselines and then trend monitoring every five years, for Part 1 monitoring, all ongoing activities and sites will be evaluated for implementation of design criteria and consistency with the LMP.

As ongoing activities and sites are administered and maintained, the implementation of design criteria and consistency with the LMP will be documented for 20% (approximately 560) of all on going activities and sites each year. It is assumed that 100% of ongoing activities and sites will be monitored over a 5 year period.

Validation A random sampling of implementation monitoring will be reviewed at the forest level for both new projects and ongoing activities and sites. The Program Emphasis and Objectives will be used to stratify the new projects and ongoing activities and sties by functional areas. As detailed in the LMP, the Program Emphasis and Objectives describe the activities and programs on the forests. Activities were organized into six functional areas, which include all areas of business for which the national forests are responsible. The functional areas collectively include 35 programs. National forest management uses the results to clearly communicate program capability both internally and externally.


22

The six functional areas are: • Management & Administration: National forest leadership, management and administrative

support activities, communications, external affairs, community outreach, planning, human resources, information technology, and financial management.

• Resource Management: Activities related to managing, preserving, and protecting the national forest's cultural and natural resources.

• Public Use & Enjoyment: Activities which provide visitors with safe, enjoyable and educational experiences while on the national forest and accommodate changing trends in visitor use and community participation and outreach.

• Facility Operations & Maintenance: Activities required to manage and operate the national forest's infrastructure (i.e., roads, facilities, trails, and structures).

• Commodity & Commercial Uses: Grazing management, forest special product development, and activities related to managing non-recreation special-uses such as national forest access, telecommunications sites, and utility corridors.

• Fire & Aviation Management: Wildland fire prevention through education, hazardous fuels reduction, and proactive preparation. This program also includes on-forest wildland fire suppression, and national or international wildland fire and emergency incident response.

A new project will be randomly selected from each of the five functional areas that had new projects implemented for the monitoring period, excluding Management & Administration because new projects do not fall in this functional area. If there are a large number of new projects implemented within a functional area over the monitoring period then a larger number of new projects should be selected. An ongoing activity and/or site will be selected from each of the Public Use & Enjoyment, Facility Operations & Maintenance, and Commodity & Commercial Uses functional areas. As timing and funding permit, ongoing activities and/or sites will be randomly selected from each applicable sub-category in the three functional areas. It is anticipated that there will be a minimum of 8 new projects and ongoing activities and sites that will be validated each year. If problems in implementation are detected, or if the design criteria are determined to be ineffective, then the team will recommend corrective actions. Corrective actions may include amendments to the Southern California Land Management Plans if necessary to improve the effectiveness of the design criteria. Results of this monitoring will be reported annually in the LMP monitoring and evaluation report. In addition, design criteria, including new laws or regulations referenced in LMP Part 3 Appendix A will be updated.

draft supplemental environmental impact statement...

Documents