Northwest Sheyenne Vegetation Management Project

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Northwest Sheyenne Vegetation Management Project DRAFT Decision Notice Appendix B Sheyenne Ranger District, Sheyenne National Grassland, Ransom County, North Dakota April 2014 Responsible Official: Bryan R. Stotts, District Ranger

2 For More Information Contact: Bernadette Braun Project Leader Sheyenne Ranger District 1601 Main Street Lisbon, ND Phone: Fax: 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 for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. ii

3 Contents Contents... i Appendix B... 1 Monitoring and Adaptive Management... 1 List of Figures Figure 1. Adaptive management decision tree... 1 List of Tables Table 1. Implementation monitoring item, method, frequency, and responsible party... 4 Table 2. Effectiveness monitoring item, method, frequency, and responsible party... 5 i

4

5 Sheyenne Ranger District, Dakota Prairie Grasslands Appendix B Monitoring and Adaptive Management Monitoring includes both Forest-level and project-level analysis and evaluation. Forest-level monitoring is discussed at length in the Forest Plan and is not reiterated here. Project level monitoring is used in the adaptive management decision process. Figure 1 provides a flowchart of the adaptive management decision process. There are two types of monitoring called for in this decision, implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring (Table 1) is often annual monitoring that evaluates whether the actions called for in this decision are being applied. Effectiveness monitoring (Table 2) is long-term monitoring that focuses on determining whether management is successful at maintaining existing desired conditions or is moving rangeland resources toward desired conditions. 1. Monitor Resource Management Objectives (e.g. Riparian Conditions/Vegetation Composition/Structure) (Is the initial management action 2. Downward Trend (No) 7. Attain Desired Condition 8. Meeting Desired Condition/Up ward Trend 3. Modify Management (Adaptive Management 6. Meeting Desired Condition/Up ward Trend 9. Continue Management 5. Downward Trend 4. Monitor Responses Figure 1. Adaptive management decision tree According to Figure 1, the following steps will occur in adaptive management: B-1

6 Northwest Sheyenne Vegetation Management Project, Draft Decision Notice Appendix B 1. Monitor Resource Management Objectives The U.S. and/or permittee evaluates whether the monitoring objective was met. Monitoring as described in Table 1and Table 2 would be used to determine if resource objectives are being met. This step assumes that the correct indicator and value is being used and this step may be subject to reevaluation later in the process. 2. Downward Trend If the resource objective was not met or a downward trend exists, proceed to the evaluation steps in Block 3. Designation of a downward trend would be determined by the deciding official based on an evaluation of resource inventory data and recommendations made by the IDT. 3. Modify Management (Adaptive Management Toolbox) If the resource objective is not being met and the trend is downward, the U.S., in consultation with the permittee and others as appropriate, would evaluate the potential cause for the downward trend and the significance of the downward trend relative to its impact on the achievement of the desired resource conditions. See examples of objectives, evaluation of those objectives, and suggested actions in the discussion below. The U.S., in consultation with the permittee, should determine whether the failure to meet the resource objective is an infrequent occurrence or whether there is routine difficulty in meeting the objective. A one-time occurrence due to some unique variable may not be significant and may not require further evaluation or adaptive management adjustments. Routine difficulty in meeting the resource objective may indicate further evaluation and the need for adaptive management adjustments. If further evaluation is warranted, the current condition should be compared with the desired condition. If a large departure between current conditions and desired resource conditions exists, it may be fairly obvious that the need to achieve the resource objective is significant and that adaptive management actions are needed to provide for the achievement of the resource objective. While the evaluation of current versus desired conditions should be made with the use of longterm monitoring data, this information may not be available. In that case, the best available information should be used, or a simple and rapid qualitative analysis should be completed to compare current conditions with desired conditions. While long-term trend and condition information is preferred, the lack of such information should not delay evaluating the current resource condition and need for adaptive management adjustments. Adaptive management adjustments should be temporary modifications until quantitative long-term condition and trend information is available to support permanent changes. If the evaluation concludes that current conditions are close to desired resource conditions, then failure to achieve the resources objectives during that grazing season may not be significant in terms of achieving long-term objectives. In this case, adaptive management adjustments may not be necessary. Existing management and monitoring to achieve desired conditions would continue. The exception to this situation may be where available information indicates that the long-term trend is negative, and adaptive management adjustments are needed. If the evaluation concludes that a significant gap between current and desired conditions exists and there is no indication of a positive trend, then the need for adaptive management adjustments are indicated. If adaptive management adjustments are warranted, the U.S. may develop these actions in collaboration with the permittee and others, as appropriate. The adaptive actions may be implemented through annual authorizations or operating instructions issued by the U.S.. B-2

7 Sheyenne Ranger District, Dakota Prairie Grasslands 5. Monitor Responses Once adaptive management adjustments are developed and assigned, the U.S., in collaboration with the permittee and others, as appropriate, must assess whether the adaptive management adjustments were implemented as designed during the following year. If adaptive management adjustments were implemented, then a determination as to whether these adjustments are achieving or moving towards achieving the resource objective should be made. Monitoring, as described in Table 1 and Table 2, would be used to determine if resource objectives are being met. If the adaptive management adjustments were effective, then management and monitoring would continue as planned (Block 6). If the adjustments were not effective, then the U.S., in collaboration with the permittee and others, as appropriate, must determine what additional adaptive management actions are needed (Block 5, and then Block 3). If failure to implement the adaptive management adjustment is not related to the design or inability to implement the adaptive action by the grazing association, the U.S. would assess the need for an administrative action. If the U.S. determines that an administrative action is not warranted, additional changes or adaptive management direction should be considered (return to Block 3). If failure to implement adaptive management adjustments is an issue of the grazing association s performance and compliance or is repetitive, then the U.S. will take appropriate action under the SVGA Grazing Agreement and FSM and Handbook direction. 6. Downward Trend If the resource objective was not met or is moving in a downward trend, proceed to the evaluation steps in Block Meeting Desired Condition or Upward Trend If the resource objective is being met or is moving in an upward trend, proceed to Block Attain Desired Condition Continue current management and monitoring so that desired condition is maintained. 9. Meeting Desired Condition or Upward Trend If the resource objective is being met or are moving in an upward trend, proceed to Block Continue Management Continue current management and proceed to Block 4. B-3

8 Northwest Sheyenne Vegetation Management Project, Draft Decision Notice Appendix B Table 1. Implementation monitoring item, method, frequency, and responsible party Monitoring Item Method a Frequency b Responsible Party c Compliance checks (meeting requirements in AOI/AMP/grazing agreement) Forage Utilization (Key Areas will be located in sands, subirrigated sands, subirrigated, and limy subirrigated ecological sites to ensure proper livestock utilization levels.) Range Improvements Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Implementation of Grasslands Plan, Appendix N) Site Visits Landscape Appearance Transects Utilization Mapping Ocular estimate Range improvements built to specifications and functioning properly as intended/maintained Acres rested in core allotments from 6/1-9/15 Acres treated for leafy spurge in core & satellite allotments Vegetation treatments done in core & satellite allotments Annual and as need indicates Variable Five year intervals and permittee and/or permittee and/or permittee and/or permittee and/or permittee a Vegetation monitoring would follow the techniques and protocols from the Interagency Technical Reference-Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements (BLM/USFS/NRCS, 1996). b The may vary the frequency of inspections on a case-by-case basis for this monitoring item depending on such factors as annual weather fluctuations, past permittee compliance history, and changes in current resource and/or social issues. Non-compliance would dictate annual monitoring until satisfactory compliance is attained. c Permittee (SVGA member or representative) is responsible for compliance with all relevant terms and conditions associated with the grazing agreement. The would make annual compliance checks and report the results to the responsible official for action, if necessary. B-4

9 Sheyenne Ranger District, Dakota Prairie Grasslands Table 2. Effectiveness monitoring item, method, frequency, and responsible party Method a Frequency b Responsible Party c Structure Objective (Only applies to ecological sites that are biologically capable of producing high structuresubirrigated sands, subirrigated, limy subirrigated, wet meadow, and wetland ecological sites) Permanent Visual Obstruction Reading (VOR) transects VOR polygon mapping in Venlo survey block Remote Sensing if available 5 year interval Riparian conditions Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) surveys Riparian surveys every 3-5 years until PFC is achieved, then every 5 years for areas without livestock presence. Additional site visits to riparian areas, as practical. Field visits to dugouts to check for presence of algae, odor, livestock usage, and extent of bare soils and trailing nearby. Dugouts visited annually as practical In allotments where herbicide is used, continue testing for appropriate herbicides in water wells that tap the Sheyenne Delta aquifer. (Continue with herbicide monitoring protocol currently used, test for any new herbicides that are approved for application). Herbicide monitoring annually Soil conditions Color infrared photography if available to measure bare soil-comparative spatial analysis When spatial files available or measure with GPS in field. B-5

10 Northwest Sheyenne Vegetation Management Project, Draft Decision Notice Appendix B Method a Frequency b Responsible Party c Field visits to new fences to determine if fenceline trailing and erosion is occurring New fencelines checked annually for first 5 grazing seasons after fence installation. Additional site visits as practical after 5 years has passed. Vegetation Composition Viability of Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Viability of Sensitive Plant Species Viability of sharptailed grouse and prairie chicken Where exclosure fences have been removed, check for active erosion, sediment movement, rills and vegetative cover so soils are maintained in the formerly excluded areas. In wet meadow areas that are mowed, conduct site visits to ensure rutting and compaction are not occurring from equipment use. Remote Sensing if available Line Point Intercept Line Intercept (shrubs) Tree Density Presence/Absence for specific species Pasture Counts/Surveys 100 m plots Population Surveys Habitat Surveys (ensure proper management actions are occurring in bogs, fens) Incorporated acres visited annually, as practical. Mowed areas visited before and after mowing. 5 year interval for all surveys Variable Variable for all Population Surveys Viability of Sensitive Population Surveys 5-10 year interval for all B-6

11 Sheyenne Ranger District, Dakota Prairie Grasslands Method a Frequency b Responsible Party c Butterflies and Skippers Habitat Surveys in core habitat (ensure proper management actions are occurring in bogs, fens, potential or known habitat for Dion skipper and mulberry wing) Inventory Prescribed and Wildland Fires Monitor Forb Cover in Habitat Variable 5 year interval a Vegetation monitoring would follow the techniques and protocols from the Interagency Technical Reference-Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements and Sampling Vegetation Attributes (BLM/USFS/NRCS, 1996). Riparian area monitoring would follow the Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) protocol (Prichard et al. 1998, 1999 (revised 2003). b The U.S. may vary the frequency of inspections on a case-by-case basis for this monitoring item depending on such factors as annual weather fluctuations, past permittee compliance history, and changes in current resource and/or social issues. Non-compliance would dictate annual monitoring until satisfactory compliance is attained. c Permittee (SVGA member or representative) is responsible for compliance with all relevant terms and conditions associated with the grazing agreement. The U.S. would make annual compliance checks and report the results to the responsible official for action, if necessary. B-7