Get documents about "Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook
Document Sample
Nevada Rangeland
Monitoring Handbook
Second Edition
Educational Bulletin 06-03
Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook
Second Edition
Authors:
Sherman Swanson, University of Nevada Cooperative Extension (Editor in Chief)
Ben Bruce, University of Nevada Cooperative Extension
Rex Cleary, Society for Range Management
Bill Dragt, Bureau of Land Management
Gary Brackley, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Gene Fults, Natural Resources Conservation Service
James Linebaugh, Nevada State Grazing Boards
Gary McCuin, Nevada Department of Agriculture
Valerie Metscher, Bureau of Land Management
Barry Perryman, University of Nevada College of Agriculture,
Biotechnology, and Natural Resources
Paul Tueller, Rangeland Consultant
Diane Weaver, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest
Duane Wilson, Bureau of Land Management
Reviewers, Doug Furtado - Bureau of Land Management, Jeff Herrick - Agricultural Research
Service, George Ruyle - University of Arizona, Chuck Saulisbury - Rangeland Consultant,
Randal Sharp - Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Pat Shaver - Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Lamar Smith - Rangeland Consultant, John McLain - Resource Concepts Inc.,
Ashley Sparrow - University of Nevada, Reno, and Kent McAdoo and Vikki Ford - University of
Nevada Cooperative Extension.
2006
With special thanks to
University of Nevada Cooperative Extension,
Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Forest Service, and
Nevada Rangeland Resources Commission
for providing the funding for publication
ii
PREFACE management, it is fitting that we learn from
our past experiences in monitoring to create
In 1980-1984, Nevada rangeland a new synthesis of current ideas.
managers recognized the importance of The 1984 Handbook emphasized
monitoring for managing livestock grazing monitoring techniques without emphasizing
and came together to create the Nevada the reasons for monitoring. Today,
Rangeland Monitoring Handbook. management is based on goals and
Published in 1984 by the Nevada Range objectives set in a planning process that
Studies Task Group of the Nevada Range considers the best science and society’s mix
Committee, the Handbook united rangeland of values. Monitoring in the 1980s focused
managers behind an agreed upon set of almost exclusively on livestock grazing
procedures. It helped many people agree management. Today, we recognize that, as
about monitoring methods and management important as this is, herbivory is only one
changes without resorting to confrontation aspect of land management, and that some
and courts. More importantly, progress in monitoring of vegetation change is needed
the management of Nevada rangelands led to track and manage problems such as
to better rangeland conditions in many areas. modified fire regimes and invasive weeds
The 1984 Nevada Rangeland Monitoring that are not resolved with livestock
Handbook recommended the following management alone. Riparian issues were
studies to be conducted at key areas: 1) not addressed in the first handbook. Today,
Production – The NRCS Double Sampling we have learned the importance of riparian
Method and the BLM Weight Estimate monitoring for adjusting management.
Vegetation Inventory Method, 2) Quadrat State and federal agencies and range
Frequency, and 3) The Modified Key Forage consultants have come together again to
Plant Method utilization transect. formulate this Second Edition. We asked
Production data were compared with NRCS others for creative help and comment to
ecological site descriptions to determine make it as useful as possible for the
ecological status. Frequency indicated management of Nevada rangelands.
changes in plant composition. These Appropriate use of this handbook
methods are still valid. The Modified Key assumes basic levels of professionalism,
Forage Plant Method has been replaced by common sense, objectivity, education,
the Key Species Method. Production data experience, mentoring, and proper
may be interpreted differently as ecological application of techniques. Every rangeland
site descriptions are being revised to reflect management and monitoring case is unique,
more recent ecological thought. Production depending on the initial conditions, site
data compared with ecological site potential, objectives, level of management
descriptions help determine ecological state. capabilities (economics, personnel, logistics,
They may be compared with Desired Plant etc.), and the relationships among the
Community (DPC) objectives. Frequency participants. Where differences (real or
studies emphasize nested plots to make data imagined) between agency regulations,
more useable through time as communities policy, or guidance and the information
change. provided in this handbook arise, the relevant
While the first Handbook proved useful, regulation, policy, or guidance will be used.
it is more than 20 years old. As monitoring However, it is intended that this Handbook
is a tool for learning from ongoing and the Ranchers’ Monitoring Guide will
management to adjust and improve meet agency requirements.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 A FRAMEWORK FOR MONITORING
2 OBJECTIVES
2 Ecological Sites
3 Riparian Areas
4 Inventory and Assessment of Base Resources
4 Land Use Planning - Large Scale
5 Resource Objectives
7 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
8 TRIGGERS AND INDICATORS
9 MONITORING METHODS – GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
9 Statistical Considerations
10 Key Areas
10 Key Species
11 Short-Term Monitoring
12 Long-Term Monitoring
12 Roles
13 MONITORING METHODS – SHORT-TERM MONITORING
13 Grazing Use Records
13 Photography
14 Project Implementation Records
14 Weather Data
14 Insects, Disease, and Rodents
14 Use Mapping
15 Utilization
15 Residual Vegetation / Stubble Height
15 Woody Species Use
15 Streambank Alteration
16 MONITORING METHODS – LONG-TERM MONITORING
16 Ground Photography
16 Remote Sensing
16 Frequency
16 Production
16 Canopy/Foliar Cover
17 Ground Cover
17 Community-Type Transects
17 Greenline-to-Greenline Width
17 Riparian Shrubs
18 Streambank Stability
18 Stream Channel Attributes
18 Stream Survey
18 Water Quality
19 DETECTING PATTERNS OF VEGETATION CHANGE ACROSS A LANDSCAPE
19 Photos or Other Remote Sensing
19 Weed Maps
19 Vegetation Measurement Across an Edge of a Community Type
4
20 SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNIQUES AND INFORMATION
20 Use Differentiation Among Wildlife, Livestock, Wild Horses, and Burros, etc.
20 Phenology
21 Fire-related Monitoring
21 Exclosures and Comparison Areas
21 Grazing Response Index
22 Apparent Trend
22 DEVELOPING A MONITORING PLAN
23 INTERPRETATION AND USE OF MONITORING DATA
APPENDICES:
A - COOPERATIVE MONITORING
B - ECOLOGICAL SITES
C - DROUGHT
D - ESTABLISHING GOOD OBJECTIVES
E - ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
F - PROCEDURES FOR SELECTING KEY AREAS AND KEY SPECIES
G - REMOTE SENSING TO MONITOR RANGELANDS
H - USE MAPPING, KEY SPECIES METHOD, AND PROPER USE
I - GROWING CONDITION INDICATOR CHECKLIST
J - FREQUENCY SAMPLING PROCEDURES
K - PRODUCTION AND PLANT COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES
L - GROUND COVER AND CANOPY COVER MEASUREMENTS
M - MONITORING PLAN TABLES
N - INTERPRETATION AND USE OF MONITORING INFORMATION
O - RANGELAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY OFFICES IN NEVADA
P - GLOSSARY
Q - REFERENCES
5
A FRAMEWORK FOR MONITORING After monitoring information has been
collected, it must be analyzed and used to
“Rangeland is a type of land on which make decisions. This handbook outlines an
indigenous vegetation (climax or natural adaptive management process that
potential) is predominantly grasses, emphasizes the use of monitoring data to
grasslike plants, forbs, or shrubs and is determine whether or not progress is being
managed as a natural ecosystem. If plants made toward management objectives.
are introduced, they are managed similarly. Monitoring therefore flows directly from the
Rangeland includes natural grasslands, objectives. Thus adequate monitoring helps
savannas, shrublands; many deserts, tundras, to justify continuing current management or
alpine communities; marshes, and make appropriate changes. Long-term
meadows” (Bedell 1998). In Nevada, some monitoring focused on the objectives can be
rangelands currently support pinyon and/or interpreted with effective short-term
juniper trees and may appear to be monitoring that keeps track of the
woodland. Rangeland is a kind of land, not management applied each year and the
a category of land use. Continuing activities effects of that management. Over time,
are underway to monitor the general state rangeland managers use monitoring to adjust
and well-being of resources, including day-to-day management, adjust management
rangelands, around the world by plans, track management, track vegetation
governmental and other organizations. changes, interpret causes and relationships,
Monitoring records, taken at regular and tell their story. A great deal of
intervals over time at randomly selected monitoring data has been collected using the
rangeland locations in the United States, are methods in the 1984 Handbook. These data
maintained by the Natural Resources should be retained and used because they
Conservation Service. Other entities, provide valuable records for tracking and
including the Environmental Protection interpreting long-term vegetation changes as
Agency, monitor change on rangelands. part of a continuing management story.
However, this revised handbook is designed The number of available monitoring
to provide guidance for tracking change techniques is voluminous. Although some
relative to management objectives, and commonly used methods are presented here
making adjustments primarily on ranches with instructions, others are simply
and public land grazing allotments. referenced because they are well described
This handbook describes the context for elsewhere. A list of references containing
monitoring, methods of data collection, and rangeland monitoring techniques is provided
uses of monitoring data. The first step in to emphasize that additional methods may
management and monitoring is setting be needed or may be better for monitoring
objectives, and this handbook guides the attainment of certain objectives. The
objective setting as well as monitoring. handbook includes a section on developing a
Objectives describe a vision of desired site-specific monitoring plan with clarity,
future conditions based on the potentials and commitments, and a timeline. The
the limitations of the soils, ecological sites, Ranchers’ Monitoring Guide (Perryman et
and their response to management. al., 2006) gives specific directions for some
Objectives are based on planning that often monitoring procedures that address
involves many people who describe what the questions or objectives that many producers
rangeland will look like and/or the resource would consider important. Appendix A
values it will produce when the plan is provides a process for cooperative
successful. Objectives determine what to monitoring.
monitor.
1
“Monitoring is the orderly collection, plant communities that occurs in the
analysis, and interpretation of resource data reference (undespoiled) state of an
to evaluate progress toward meeting ecological site, is referred to as the historic
management objectives. This process must climax plant community for that site.
be conducted over time to determine if Ecological site descriptions are a
management objectives are being met” continuing endeavor to collect, interpret, and
(Bedell 1998). Monitoring helps: categorize knowledge of the physical and
1. Determine whether management biological relationships and temporal nature
actions are meeting objectives; of natural plant communities. A state and
2. Provide a record of environmental transition model can be used to describe
and resource conditions, events, and vegetation dynamics and management
management actions that may influence interactions associated with each ecological
objective achievement; site. Ecological sites identify an assemblage
3. Determine if management actions are of soil qualities and dominating patterns of
maintaining or improving the rangeland plant species on a landscape position that
value, productivity, and condition (assuming operates under a subsystem of the
those are reflected in the objectives); hydrologic cycle and interacts with natural
4. Identify vegetation trends toward ecosystem processes and disturbances such
ecological thresholds that are unacceptable as precipitation events, fire, and animals.
because they may be irreversible; The descriptions and models, by describing
5. Evaluate when management changes disturbance regimes and possible plant
are needed to meet objectives; communities, help evaluate management,
6. Determine whether management guide further study, and suggest proper use
objectives are realistic and achievable; opportunities. More than 900 different
7. Evaluate whether present uses of ecological sites have been described in
money and time produce an acceptable Nevada (see ecological site descriptions for
benefit; each Major Land Resource Area available
8. Assist rangeland managers with from the local NRCS office). For a detailed
livestock management or management of description of ecological sites and their use
other uses. for management, planning, and monitoring
refer to Appendix B. Where ecological sites
OBJECTIVES are not yet described, the concept could be
applied to identify units of the landscape
Ecological Sites - Ecological sites are with repeating soil and vegetation
interpretive units defined and described by characteristics.
NRCS (2003). Rangeland landscapes are
divided into ecological sites for the purposes
of inventory, evaluation, and management.
They are defined by climate, geology, soils,
vegetation, and other environmental factors
and are separated from each other based on
differences in their ability to produce kinds,
amounts, and proportions of natural
vegetation. An ecological site is recognized
and described on the basis of the
characteristics that differentiate it from other
sites in its ability to produce and support a
characteristic plant community. One of the
2
RIPARIAN AREAS - riparian areas serve estimations with measurements and have
as a transition to the upland from streams been used to help set management goals and
and other waters. Riparian areas protect the objectives, and track progress. Stream
aquatic resource and provide unique habitats classification (Rosgen 1996) has also been
for wildlife, livestock, and people. Properly used to make management interpretations.
functioning riparian areas (Prichard et al., These and other classification tools can
1993, 1994, 1998, and 2003) keep water on assist in the assessment of riparian proper
the land longer, improve water quality, functioning condition (PFC) in relation to
produce important fish and wildlife habitats, site potential for each stream reach or lentic
produce lush green forage, and retain their area.
stability and beauty for recreation. The checklist for lotic or lentic riparian
Everyone benefits when riparian areas PFC (Prichard 1993, 1994, 1998, and 2003)
function properly. As a natural attractant for helps identify problems that managers could
wildlife, livestock, and human uses, riparian address to promote riparian restoration
areas are often used in ways that detract through management. Focusing on the at-
from their ability to function properly. risk areas and negative attributes identified
Functional-at-risk riparian areas have one or in PFC assessment is helpful in
more attributes that make them susceptible identification of management issues to set
to degradation. Nonfunctional riparian areas objectives. Management objectives for
fail to dissipate stream or wave energy, fail riparian areas could focus on species
to enhance infiltration and recharge aquifers, composition of riparian meadows
and fail to capture sediment. Rather, they (Weixelman et al. 1996 and 1999), on the
become sources of sediment creating water streambank (Winward 2000), or on
quality problems, with excessively high structural features of vegetation that drive
dirty flows after precipitation or snowmelt channel form and stability (Winward 2000;
events and excessively low and warm flows Cowley and Burton 2005). Such objectives
in summer. Whereas proper functioning address factors that are directly influenced
condition riparian areas withstand most by a variety of management activities
floods and droughts (Appendix C), they including livestock, roads, upland
often improve through theses events. watershed, or water storage and use.
However, some very large and rarely Understanding the responses of similar
encountered floods may be too large causing streams or wetland areas to management,
even some properly functioning riparian helps managers prescribe management and
areas to become nonfunctional or at-risk. set management objectives. Because the
Classification of riparian areas is less physical characteristics of riparian areas
complete than upland ecological sites. change when they become nonfunctional,
However, some larger meadows or other such as through channel incision, the
homogenous vegetation types and soils original potential may no longer be viable as
relationships have been documented a management objective, at least for the
(Manning and Padgett 1995; Weixelman et timeframe of the management plan.
al. 1996 and 1999) and ecological site However, stream channels as well as lentic
descriptions are available in local NRCS riparian areas go through predictable
offices. The Forest Service uses scorecards sequences of change in response to
to provide condition ratings for various management and hydrologic events (see
rangeland types (e.g., Weixelman et al. 1996 sequence of events in Setting Management
and 1999). Various stream surveys have Objectives Appendix D).
been used throughout Nevada (e.g., USFS To help set objectives, managers can
1985 and BLM 2001b). They combine interpret the indicators of functionality and
3
predict the sequence of events that must and b) provides methods for measuring
happen for functionality to return (or for it to indicators of rangeland health. This helps
restore specific riparian values). This identify issues, states, and transitions, set
defines monitoring needs and methods. objectives, determine limitations and select
Because riparian areas managed to retain key areas.
proper functioning condition often continue Most Nevada BLM offices have
to improve, the cyclic process of setting Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) and/or Soil
objectives, managing, and monitoring often Vegetation Inventory Method (SVIM)
spirals a riparian area into a condition that inventories and the Forest Service too has
provides the optimum in resource values. collected soils and plant community type
Riparian monitoring often focuses on a data that remain on file. These data sets are
common set of short-term and long-term the best historical vegetation data available
indicators, such as the multiple indicators for some areas and could be useful for
method of Cowley and Burton (2005). tracking long-term changes in some
Monitoring can document spatial variation landscape-scale or site-specific objectives.
and a sequence of changes in condition or Broad-scale assessments or inventories
values. Objectives can be adjusted to can be interpreted through the lens of
account for spatial variation and changes in classifications or combined with other
conditions and values. This cyclic process resource inventories to make interpretations
helps identify the mechanics of restoration more valid or specific. For example,
and the variety of tools for management. vegetation data are much more interpretable
with the benefit of a soil survey and stream
Inventory and Assessment of Base survey data makes more sense with stream
Resources - Inventory and assessment are classification and proper functioning
different from monitoring. The data condition assessment.
collected and information developed in
inventories and assessments are important Land Use Planning – Large Scale -
components of the management picture. Federal agency land-use planning does not
Often inventories supply the site specific relate directly to monitoring. Because 70%
baseline data points. Modern assessment of the land in Nevada is managed by the
methods such as riparian PFC (Prichard et BLM or Forest Service and most of these
al., 1993, 1994, 1998, and 2003) and lands are used for livestock grazing and
interpreting indicators of rangeland health other uses, the source of agency
(Pellant et al., 2005) evaluate the current management objectives is important. Land
status of a number of indicators that address use planning objectives become or lead to
basic system functionality. Evaluating the objectives for management of individual
several indicators allows the manager to grazing allotments. Additionally, BLM has
more precisely identify problems and the regulatory requirement to achieve the
develop management with objectives and fundamentals of rangeland health. This is
actions designed to fix the specific problem, accomplished by meeting the Resource
rather than having to try and address the Advisory Councils’ Standards and
whole system. Although not trend Guidelines for Livestock Grazing. The
monitoring, when inventories and relationship of this to monitoring is that land
assessments are repeated through time they use plans, agency activity plans, agency
can show changes in issues, opportunities, standards, and the Standards for Rangeland
and priorities. Cowley and Burton (2005) Health can directly provide, or can lead to,
provide quantitative methods for measuring management objectives applicable to
riparian trend, just as Herrick et al., (2005a individual allotments and specific areas.
4
As required by law, both the Forest Planning is in progress under guidance in
Service and BLM develop land use plans the Forest Service Manual (FSM1900
that at a broad scale allocate resources and chapter 1920).
set goals and objectives. These plans set the Activity-level plans are often specific to
stage for more site-specific planning efforts one or two types of activities in smaller
by describing appropriate uses, desired areas. Activity level plan types include
conditions, and management goals, allotment management plans (AMPs) for
objectives, or strategies. The BLM has livestock grazing, herd management area
Resource Management Plans (RMPs) and (HMA) plans for wild horses and burros,
Management Framework Plans (MFPs), and habitat management plans (HMPs) for
which are all being updated to RMPs, and wildlife or fisheries. Activity plans usually
the Forest Service writes Land and Resource address: 1) an issue or specific use, 2)
Management Plans (Forest Plans). Since existing and desired resource conditions, 3)
these land use plans are of varying ages, objectives addressing these conditions, 4)
include geographically diverse areas, and are standards or guidelines to direct
completed by two different federal agencies, management of the activity and 5) a
they contain a range of objectives, monitoring plan established to determine
flexibility, and specificity. Land use plans whether the activity is meeting objectives
also include monitoring plans with and achieving or moving towards the
requirements that vary from general to objectives. In BLM Nevada, multiple use
specific. decision (MUDs) are equivalent to AMPs.
To implement the Fundamentals of Often the process of developing activity
Rangeland Health (43 CFR § 4180.2(b)), plans is collaborative, using a process like
standards and guidelines for livestock Coordinated Resource Management
grazing and wild horse management have (Phillippi and Cleary 1993). Currently, not
been developed by three BLM Resource all livestock grazing allotments on either the
Advisory Councils (RACs). According to Forest Service or BLM have an AMP;
BLM’s regulations, management of the therefore, management of these allotments is
public lands must be designed to make guided by the objectives and standards in the
progress toward and achieve the RAC’s higher level land use plans.
standards (43 CFR 4180.2(c)). Revised On private rangeland, planning is the
resource management planning is in responsibility of the landowner. However,
progress under guidance in the Land Use others such as NRCS, University of Nevada
Planning Handbook (H-1601-1). The Cooperative Extension, and Nevada
newest group of Nevada RMPs are Departments of Agriculture and Wildlife
incorporating the applicable RAC standards. may also help with information, technical
Forest Service standards and guidelines assistance, financial assistance, and/or
were developed for both the Humboldt and collaboration. Publications such as the
Toiyabe National Forests in forest plans National Range and Pasture Handbook
written in the mid 1980s and amended (NRCS 2003) help with planning. The best
several times in the 1990s. These Forest private and public land management plans
Plan standards and guidelines include are developed in collaboration with land
direction specifically for management of owners, managers, and other interested
livestock such as forage utilization and parties. When a use occurs on both public
stream bank disturbance. Future forest plans and private lands, it makes sense to plan and
will be more descriptive of desired monitor across ownerships.
conditions and less prescriptive of methods
for their attainment. Revised Forest
5
Resource Objectives - Resource objectives important critical areas or key areas such as
state specific attributes of natural resource important species on a large or important
conditions that management will strive to ecological site. All objectives should track
accomplish, the area or location where this from the issues through the planned
will occur, and the time frame. Resource management and into the use of monitoring
objectives must be site-specific, measurable, information for adaptive management.
and attainable statements of the desired Since the success or failure of the
resource attributes. Qualities or attributes of applied management is determined by
good objectives are SMART (adapted from tracking resource changes over time,
Adamcik et.al. 2004)): objectives must be measurable attributes of
S – Specific – They describe what will be the resources that are directly affected by the
accomplished, focusing on limiting management applied. For example, for
factors, and identifying the range of livestock grazing management, plant species
acceptable change from the present to composition or community structure is
the proposed condition. appropriate to describe a desired plant
M – Measurable – The change between community within the potential of a specific
present and proposed condition must be ecological site. These resource
quantifiable and measurable. characteristics respond directly to livestock
A – Achievable – They can be achieved use and are sensitive to changes in grazing
within a designated time period and in management. Likewise, riparian
accord with resource capability. The characteristics such as shrub canopy cover
time period may be in calendar time and degree of unvegetated banks on a
and/or may incorporate timing in specific stream reach are resource attributes
relation to floods or droughts. that can be directly affected by livestock use
R – Related/Relevant – They are related in and respond quickly to management changes
all instances to the land use plan goals in many settings. It is paramount that the
and relevant to current management selected resource objectives be site-specific,
practices. Thus, they must be worthy within the site’s capabilities, and clearly
of the cost of the management needed predicted from planned livestock grazing or
to achieve them and the monitoring other management.
needed to track them. Objectives should be quantitative
T – Trackable – They must be trackable statements of desired future conditions
over time and must include a definite (DFC) based upon the capabilities and
timeframe and location for limitations of the ecological site. DFC could
achievement, monitoring, and include such resource attributes as
evaluation. vegetation, soil, and water quality. Desired
For examples of well worded objectives, see plant community (DPC) is a quantitative
Appendix D. expression of the plant community that
The scale for objectives should match exists or may exist on a specific site and that
the scale and focus of the planned management actions are designed to
management and the timeline for making maintain or produce. The DPC must be
management decisions. Some management within the site’s potential, its documented
objectives should reflect landscape-scale capacity to produce naturally, or through
questions such as: Are pinyon and/or reasonably applied management actions, and
juniper trees encroaching? Are invasive it must be sustainable. In places (almost
weeds expanding? Is the landscape everywhere) where vegetation is expected to
becoming more homogeneous? Other continue to change through time or cycle
management objectives should focus on because of disturbances such as periodic fire
6
(or vegetation management that replaces the Objectives may focus management and
role of fire) followed by plant succession, monitoring on new questions, types of data,
the DPC is dynamic. It can be expressed as and/or interpretations. Because one change
an approximate proportion of the landscape leads to another, monitoring methods used
in various stages of the cycle and/or through time in the same way and at the
expressed as a range of conditions that same location gain value and develop
ensures resilience after disturbance. State significance. Keeping existing data, and
and transition model concepts can be used to periodically remeasuring and interpreting
ensure that DPCs represent sustainable vegetation data using established methods
resilience of ecological processes. That is on established plots, is extremely valuable
plant communities that resist transition for developing our understanding for
across ecological thresholds. Expressly rangeland management. Cited references
describing disturbance regimes helps to describe the methods for many accepted
convey the dynamic nature of rangeland monitoring techniques.
vegetation and DPCs at an appropriate Once the monitoring data are collected,
spatial and temporal scale. DFC is they must be analyzed along with other
analogous to DPC but has a broader useful data and information. Analysis
perspective including other measurable includes organizing, summarizing, and
resource attributes or features in addition to evaluating the information. This can include
the vegetation resource (e.g., channel width, statistical analysis of data along with
width/depth ratio, soil quality, etc.). assessment of its validity and utility.
Because it is often preferable to complete
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT planning and monitoring using a
collaborative approach, analysis of
Adaptive management (Appendix E) is monitoring data should also be done
the continual process of learning from our collaboratively. This is especially true if
experiences and managing based on what we different people collect different parts of the
have learned. An acceptable plan should whole data set. For example, if the
include a management program and a permittee collects short-term monitoring
monitoring program needed to keep data and agencies collect long-term data,
management on track, test assumptions, collaborative analysis is preferred.
provide the information needed for future The result of the analysis is reaching
planning, and guide rangeland managers. conclusions about whether the objectives are
Adaptive management depends on being achieved or progress is being made
flexibility. Management plans and toward the objectives. Additionally,
monitoring methods flow from objectives. conclusions must be reached about the
Cooperative monitoring (Appendix A) causes of meeting or not meeting the
builds on the same principles as cooperative objectives. Both kinds of conclusions are
management. People who depend on public essential. Both must be thoroughly reasoned
land should take particular interest in based on all the available information. For
monitoring. It is the responsibility of the application to public lands, that rationale
managing agency or landowner to modify must be documented. The permittee should
the plan as needed in light of new be included in discussions and development
information gathered through monitoring. of the conclusions to better understand
Monitoring methods should be selected management practices and conditions for the
to determine whether progress is being made particular site and season(s) of use.
toward achieving management objectives. The conclusions lead to a decision. To
And, to the extent it is not, why not. generalize, there are three possible
7
decisions; continue existing management, response index in the Ranchers’ Monitoring
change management, or change objectives. Guide, (Perryman et al., 2006)).
The first two choices are fairly self- End-point indicators are end-of-season
explanatory. The third choice, change guides for land managers to assess resource
objectives, would be made when the use impacts at the end of the grazing and
information, analysis, and conclusions growing season, whichever comes last.
indicated that the objectives were not Assessment of both triggers and end-point
achievable, or the objectives did not actually indicators is to determine if grazing use left
relate to or were poor indicators of the resources in an appropriate condition for
identified issues, or the desired future moving toward objectives. Generally, end-
conditions. Changing objectives is also point indicators cannot by themselves
appropriate when new planning sets new determine whether a particular grazing
goals. system is contributing to recovery or
conversely, contributing to degradation.
TRIGGERS AND INDICATORS This is especially true of a single year’s
values.
Within-season triggers and end-of- Across broad and diverse areas, different
season (end-point) indicators are guides for values of a given indicator or different
managing livestock movement (University indicators would be selected for different
of Idaho Stubble Height Review Team vegetation types and management situations.
2004). They are included in grazing For example, crested wheatgrass, with its
management plans after cooperative resilience to grazing pressure and tendency
development by land and livestock toward wolf plants, might have a higher
managers. Triggers and end-point utilization level than would be suitable for
indicators, along with other required bluebunch wheatgrass, a species more
management practices, are expected to susceptible to grazing damage. A pasture
achieve long-term desired conditions. When might have a higher target utilization level if
using within-season triggers and end-point grazed in a rotation with a short-use period
indicators, the monitoring strategy must not than for the same area if grazed every year
only measure and evaluate whether or not for a longer period, especially if that grazing
the allowable numeric value was met, but use coincided with the reproductive phase of
also whether the value is correct. If plant growth.
measures of annual use indicate that the
current grazing intensity or strategy is not
being achieved or is inconsistent with
achieving the desired resource objectives,
then the agency and the permittee should
implement corrections. This is the adaptive
management process.
Triggers are within-season guides for
livestock managers to make changes or
move livestock, ensuring that end-point
indicators (described below) are met.
Triggers must be site and management plan
specific. Recording use level at the end of
grazing is useful even when the move was
not triggered by the level of use (See grazing
8
to study design and data analyses see that
section in Sampling Vegetation Attributes
MONITORING METHODS – (BLM 1999a) and in Elzinga et al. (1998).
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS To be fair and unbiased, sampling uses
procedures to randomly select the precise
Statistical Considerations -- Because areas and plants to measure. Methods to do
virtually every measurement of nature this vary. Some use a random number table
shows variation, scientists have developed and locate plots on a grid. Others use a
procedures for sampling and replication to systematic approach that places plots at set
gain confidence that their data represent distances along a transect with a random
reliable estimates or statistically significant starting point within the area of interest.
differences as opposed to accidental or In monitoring, there is always a trade off
biased measurement errors. Generally, more between the efficiency of taking multiple
sampling increases the ability to detect samples at one location and the increased
significant differences. In fact, it is possible information from collecting samples from
to detect differences that are so small that many different locations. For example,
they are not important. However, with low collecting data from an individual plant or
budgets for land management and plot at a dozen different locations would tell
monitoring, the more common problem is more than the same information from a
collecting enough data to gain confidence dozen different plants or plots at one
that the measurements represent reality location. If all the data are from one
rather than simply random variation. Or location the question remains, “How
conversely, monitoring may show that real representative was this location?”
and important change is hidden by random Statisticians would call this no replication
variation. Some have suggested that all and zero degrees of freedom and could not
monitoring use the standards of science and analyze the information to learn about the
statistics. However, seeking the degree of bigger area. However, traveling a long
confidence appropriate for research could distance to a new location is expensive and
restrict monitoring to a very few questions the randomly chosen plant or plot may not
that are really important, the questions that be like its neighbors. The middle road is
drive science. Scientists can afford to usually best; collect enough information
sample repeatedly and to design experiments about a number of plants or plots at each
with replication because they seek a change location to ensure the data accurately reflect
in our knowledge about principles that the vegetation there (this produces sample
would be useful in many places, not just in a averages with low variability) and collect
local management situation. these data from at least a few different
Therefore, in most cases, managers look locations (this provides a broader
for converging evidence of a variety of perspective and allows analysis of variance
types. They assemble monitoring to determine whether differences are
information to interpret the effects of significant).
management in a manner that makes sense. How many plots and how many
When such information contains samples locations is an age-old question and the
from many locations that tell the same story, answer depends on data variation (more
their confidence increases that this story variation leads to more samples), how
represents the management situation. To precisely you need to know (it requires more
help clarify their thinking, many of the tools data to detect smaller differences), how
of statistics can be used to increase and expensive the data are to collect, and how
explain our confidence. For an introduction important it is to know. It also depends on
9
the resource objective and when setting managers, livestock operators, and others
management objectives, managers should who know the range should cooperatively
consider the cost of monitoring. There is an select key areas based on management goals
ideal match among the size of the change, and objectives.
the variability and expense of detecting the An area may be selected for monitoring
change, and the importance of the change. where a management problem warrants
To justify an objective that targets a small special attention. This kind of area is
change in a variable parameter, it must be termed a critical management area or critical
very important because it will require a great area. Critical areas often represent smaller
many samples or replicate study sites to parts of management units that are more
measure with enough precision to detect the important to managers, such as riparian
change (or not) with confidence. areas or specific places in riparian areas
Conversely, a change that is very obvious where there is a need to focus management
may be recorded with only a photograph, and monitoring. Designated monitoring
and may be easy to justify based on the low areas (Cowley and Burton 2005) are similar.
cost of monitoring. (See appendix F.)
To avoid having to sample an excess Key areas in a unit may change if
number of locations, monitoring often management or objectives significantly
reduces the variability by focusing on key change. Therefore, key areas should be
areas that represent the planned management periodically re-evaluated to assure that the
in a stratified random rather than a overall monitoring results reflect the
completely random manner. That is, they situation in the unit and current management
focus on areas that are getting the prescribed objectives. However, the value of long-term
treatment and where the management data sets should be considered as well. It is
objectives would show a change if the very helpful if aerial photographs or other
management works. They avoid those areas images are available to aid in the process of
that do not represent management concerns key area selection. These photos may be
or that the management plan is not expected available from various sources including the
to address. Key areas are discussed more management agencies or from private
below and in Appendix F. companies that sell imagery of land areas in
Nevada (see Appendix G for a list). (See
Key Areas -- Proper selection of key area(s) Appendix F for further information on the
is an essential step in a representative selection of key areas.)
monitoring program. A key area is a
relatively small portion of a unit selected as Key Species -- Key species are generally an
a point for monitoring change in vegetation important component of a plant community.
or soil and the impacts of management. It is They are important forage species.
chosen because of its location, use, and However, non-forage species can also serve
value. It is assumed that key areas, if as useful indicators of change in resource
properly located, will reflect the current conditions. More than one key species may
management over similar important areas in be selected, depending on management
the unit. Key areas should represent range objectives and data needs. Allotment
conditions, trends, seasonal degrees of use, management objectives are often based on
and resource production and values. Key improving or maintaining the health,
areas may be selected to represent a production, and reproduction of key species.
particular plant community, a specific Plants for monitoring wildlife habitat,
ecological site, or some other significant watershed, or other attributes may be
portion of a management unit. Rangeland selected for monitoring if they tie land
10
management to ecosystems processes insect infestations, fire, and adequacy of
targeted by objectives. range improvements. Techniques used for
Key forage species indicate the general short-term monitoring may include notes
degree of use on a key area and may indicate recorded in a pocket calendar or herd book
grazing use of closely related species. They and other livestock management records,
may also be species targeted by management precipitation and temperature measurements,
objectives. Key forage species may refer to use pattern mapping, residual vegetation
species that, because of their importance on studies, and photography.
the key area, must be considered in the Often short-term monitoring leads to
management program. Species with low management decisions within the grazing
palatability should not be selected for forage season. Plant phenology may provide
utilization studies since they may give a evidence that a planned turn-out date is too
false lower use rating, leading to higher use early or too late (Appendix I). Within-
on the more palatable forage species. season triggers could include changes in
Similarly, plants that are highly palatable livestock behavior such as a shift in use
“ice-cream” species with low composition in areas or preferred forage or reaching
the forage base (<15%) make inappropriate planned seasonal utilization on specific
key species. (See Appendix F for procedures plants or plant groups. Weather that
and criteria for selecting key forage species.) influences plant growth may also indicate
the time to move in order to provide
Short-term Monitoring -- Short term opportunity for regrowth. Monitoring end-
monitoring addresses three topics: of-season indicators (at the end of the
1) Conformance with the plan, growing and grazing season) could include
2) Current, annual, or short-term impacts percent of browsed shrub leaders, stubble
of the implemented management on height, and/or utilization. This documents
resources of interest, and the accumulated influence or lack of
3) Weather and other unplanned events. influence of current year’s management and
This information guides day-to-day and establishes the amount of regrowth to assist
year-to-year management by monitoring in planning next year’s management.
within-season triggers and end-point Management changes that are based on
indicators. Accumulated short-term multiple years of monitoring are usually
monitoring records help interpret trend and more sound than changes based on just one
other long-term monitoring information. or two. Furthermore, strict adherence to
Analysis of accumulated data should explain triggers can cause sudden changes
“why,” if long-term objectives were not met, throughout a management system (Smith et
and help to plan needed changes in al., 2005). However, the need for some
management. If long-term objectives are changes becomes obvious quickly, and early
met, these data will provide a logical and change keeps rangeland more productive.
reasonable basis for continuing or adjusting The need for triggers and the strictness of
current management practices. their application ought to vary on a case-by-
For livestock grazing management, case basis, depending on the current status
short-term monitoring may include keeping of the resource in relation to the objective
records of observations and gathering data and the degree to which an action prohibits
on actual use (See form for this in Perryman accomplishing management objectives.
et al., 2006), distribution patterns and
utilization (Appendix H), streambank
alteration (Cowley and Burton 2005),
growing conditions, and documentation of
11
Long-term Monitoring -- Long-term appropriate. However, some resource
monitoring measures changes in resource management objectives refer to spatial
attributes such as vegetation, soils, or problems like the expansion of woodlands
streams over time and is used to periodically onto other ecological sites or the invasion of
measure progress toward meeting long-term weeds, and it may be more useful to
resource management objectives. It also measure these changes across broad areas.
helps determine the applicability of annual If such changes are clearly visible,
indicators or triggers. Long-term studies are landscape oblique or aerial photographs
usually done at permanent sampling capture the relevant information very well.
locations in key areas. Techniques used or Less visible changes may require the use of
types of data collected periodically for long- large-scale maps or transects across edges of
term monitoring may include frequency community types.
(Appendix J), percent composition by Probably the single most used, long-term
weight of the vegetation (Appendix K) , monitoring method is repeat photography.
resource value ratings, remote sensing Many retrospective studies have
including ground and aerial documented the nature of long-term
photography(Appendix G), photo plots ( vegetation changes (or lack of change).
(Perryman et al., 2006)) and evaluation of Furthermore, in the absence of quantitative
permanent exclosures. data, or in the presence of conflicting or
Because management objectives vary by confusing quantitative data, many people
location, long-term monitoring methods also rely on what they can see or think they can
vary (see Sampling Vegetation Attributes see in photographs. In addition,
(BLM 1999a) and Measuring and photography can be fast and, with proper
Monitoring Plant Populations (Elzinga et al. labeling and storage, provides a record that
1998)). However, because long-term can be appreciated in many different ways.
monitoring is intended to detect trend, it is Sometimes photographs address issues that
very important that methods be used were not important when the first pictures
consistently through time at specified were taken.
locations as long as they continue to provide
data that is useful to managers for measuring Roles -- Ideally, monitoring would occur
objectives. Vegetation is the resource across ownership boundaries in pursuit of
monitored most because it is at the heart of the visionary goals and objectives of a
most ecological processes and responds to coordinated management plan. In reality,
management. However, dynamic soil landowners (including owners of land leased
properties are receiving increased attention to others for grazing livestock) and land
(Herrick et al., 2005a and b). Quadrat management agencies have responsibility
frequency data have been collected on BLM for both the care of the land and its
lands since the early 1980s. Appropriate monitoring. Land management agencies
monitoring methods have been, or could be, have a legal requirement to monitor land use
described for management of riparian activities for multiple purposes. Producers
attributes, soils, water quality, and aquatic may focus on resource productivity. They
habitats, etc. benefit by active involvement in
Traditionally, vegetation monitoring management of livestock operations and
methods were designed for use on a key monitoring on private and public lands.
area, or benchmark, on permanent plots with All parties should review the information
the idea that vegetation changes at the together on an annual basis and use it to plan
monitoring site reflect the management adjustments and strategies for the following
objective. For many objectives this is quite grazing season. Land users other than
12
livestock producers may also take an active Monitoring, Analysis, Interpretation, and
part in monitoring. Evaluation (BLM 1984) and the USFS has
Animal husbandry is the accepted and 2209.21 Rangeland Ecosystem Analysis and
common role of the producers. Grazing Monitoring Handbook. The agencies are
management aims to provide the quality and responsible for coordinating and cooperating
quantity of forage needed for successful with producers in all phases of monitoring.
animal husbandry operation. The ideal Agencies encourage active producer
relationship between the producer and the participation especially in short-term
land management agencies will result in the monitoring.
identification of monitoring tools and
management practices that meet the MONITORING METHODS –
objectives of each. The idea of cooperative SHORT-TERM MONITORING
monitoring is embraced by the public lands
council in memoranda with the bureau of Grazing Use Records – Accurate recording
land management and forest service. of actual grazing use by livestock, wild
Because agencies have requirements about horses and burros, and wildlife should be
data quality for rangeland monitoring, it is maintained by unit or pasture. Grazing use
important for producers to use accepted records contain dates and numbers of
methods. The more a producer participates livestock gathered and moved, as well as
in or initiates cooperative monitoring death losses, grazing problems involving
(Appendix A), the more influence they may water or livestock distribution, salting
have in improving management. records, forage conditions, or other
Furthermore, this may encourage agencies to important matters. A pocket herd-book or a
become more effective as partners in diary is often used. These data provide
monitoring and management. On an annual information on the season and duration of
basis, producers should track weather, use and the number, kind, and class of
growing conditions, and the results of grazing animals that are using and have used
management (such as utilization or stubble pastures. The livestock manager should be
height) to help make appropriate grazing primarily responsible for the livestock part
management decisions. Appendix I of this record, assisted by the agency
(growing condition indicator checklist) and rangeland manager. An example of a form
Ranchers’ Monitoring Guide section on that can be used to record actual use data is
grazing response index (Perryman et al., in Perryman et al., (2006).
2006) provide forms for recording this
information. Costs and economic returns to Photography – Photographs capture a
investment are also important considerations variety of useful information, especially
for ranching and rangeland management to when they include an object that indicates
remain sustainable. scale such as a ruler or hat. Any photograph
Management agencies have regulatory of an area should be labeled and dated in the
responsibilities for short-term monitoring photograph (it should be easy to locate and
and long-term monitoring to ensure that re-photograph in the future). Hall (2001)
permitted or leased activities are conducted provides other useful information in his
to meet goals, objectives, and standards, photo point monitoring handbook. See
often related to resource sustainability and photography in the Ranchers’ Monitoring
multiple land uses. To provide guidance for Guide (Perryman et al., 2006) (and see
this, the BLM has the 4180 Handbook, Appendix G).
Rangeland Health Standards (BLM 2001a)
and their technical reference, Rangeland
13
Project Implementation Records – Many insect, and rodent impacts. Monitoring
resource management plans call for projects records should include notes on the location
of various types, including range seedings, of significant occurrences and impacts. It
fences, water developments, etc. Records of can also be informative to read existing
implementation should be documented. long-term studies following an insect or
Precise records of the what, where, when, disease episode to document the effects and
and how helps managers learn from the rate and patterns of recovery.
experience of projects, especially those that
involve many variables such as seedings. A Use Mapping – Mapping of areas for
plan for recording this information, as well proportions of the annual production that has
as project success and maintenance, should been consumed or destroyed by animals is
be part of project plans. Depending on the one of the most important tools in grazing
lifespan of the project, this may require short management for short-term monitoring. Use
and/or long-term monitoring. mapping helps to establish key areas,
identify distribution problems and solutions,
Weather Data – Weather is the most develop objectives and grazing plans, locate
important single factor influencing variation range improvements, and make adjustments
in forage production. When properly in management plans. The utilization map
recorded, weather data are an essential part for an allotment or pasture can help range
of both short-term monitoring and long- managers determine whether or not the
term interpretation. General observations on grazing plan is functioning as designed. The
growing conditions and any applicable map can identify and indicate the relative
measured weather data should be considered extent of areas underused, overused, and
when making changes in grazing use. properly used. Problem areas can be
Monitoring plans should include gathering identified for closer study to determine
information on weather (temperature and causes and potential solutions. Photographs
precipitation) and growing conditions (soil and/or Global Positioning System (GPS)
moisture). Ranch weather stations can be points at use areas may be taken to display
extremely useful. It may be useful to obtain utilization levels at certain locations.
ranch and pasture-specific data. Making and regularly updating
The Western Regional Climate Center utilization maps is a joint responsibility of
provides weather data for 141 locations in rangeland managers and livestock operators.
Nevada at It is also essential for adaptive management.
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmn This process helps them become familiar
v.html. Other sources are the Natural with the allotment. These periodic visits and
Resources Conservation Service, the Forest observations help identify needed
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, adjustments in grazing plans. Adjustments
Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station might be in the form of new or relocated
Field Stations, other agencies such as the water developments, fences or salt grounds,
Nevada Department of Transportation, and or changing the intensity of grazing by
any ranchers who maintain records. modifying livestock numbers or the season
Relationships between seasonal precipitation or length of use period. An approach to use
patterns and temperatures can be used to mapping is discussed in Appendix H and in
interpret production and vegetation Utilization Studies and Residual
dynamics. Measurements (BLM 1999b).
Insects, Disease, and Rodents – All
rangeland vegetation is subject to disease,
14
Utilization – Utilization is the estimation of and estimated and mapped throughout
the proportion of annual production riparian areas. They should not be used as
consumed or destroyed by animals. The long-term resource objectives. For guidance
proper time to measure utilization depends on measuring residual vegetation or stubble
on the purpose for which the data will be height, see (Perryman et al., 2006) or BLM
used. Seasonal use is estimated during the (1999b). The proper use of stubble height is
growing season. End-of-season utilization is discussed in Clary and Leininger (2000),
estimated at the end of the grazing and University of Idaho Stubble Height Review
growing season. Most studies on forage Team (2004), (Appendix H), Hall and
utilization are based on end-of-season Bryant (1995), and Cowley and Burton
utilization levels. Both types of utilization (2005).
measurements help with adaptive
management. The Key Species Method Woody Species Use – Willows, aspen, and
(formerly the Modified Key Forage Plant other woody riparian species play an
Method) has been widely recommended important role in some riparian systems,
(Nevada Range Studies Task Group1984) providing shade, nesting and foraging
and used to monitor utilization on upland habitat for wildlife, and roots and stems for
key areas. See Appendix H for a description roughness and streambank stability. Other
of this method. Utilization (or residual woody species provide important wildlife
vegetation) may be more effective than habitat in uplands. Many of these species
stubble height for tall bunchgrass rangelands are palatable or preferred by livestock and/or
because of the uneven use by grazers. It wildlife over other forages during certain
may be easier to observe stubble height on seasons. Excessive use of woody species
meadows, or residual vegetation in annual can prevent regeneration and limit density,
grasslands. It is easier to see the amount height, canopy volume, or habitat quantity
remaining than to estimate the portion and quality. Specific use levels on woody
removed. The key is to choose methods that species are often used as triggers for
best measure progress toward objectives and livestock movement. Use levels for woody
note that utilization or residual vegetation species should not be used as a long-term
are management tools, not long-term resource objective. A method for
resource objectives. monitoring the use of woody species is
addressed in Utilization Studies and
Residual vegetation or stubble height – Residual Measurements (BLM 1999b) and
Stubble can be useful for providing modifications of that technique for riparian
roughness that slows water and encourages areas in Cowley and Burton (2005) and the
sediment deposition and retention. Ranchers’ Monitoring Guide (Perryman et
Therefore, stubble height is often used as an al., 2006). These methods estimate the
indicator of the effectiveness of riparian proportion of available leaders that have
grazing management. Because intensity of been browsed.
use during the growing season is important
to plant physiology and regrowth, seasonal Streambank Alteration – In addition to the
use (measured within the growing season) is use of vegetation, large herbivores can cause
often used as a trigger for livestock physical disturbance to riparian areas.
movement. Residual vegetation, stubble When streambanks are trampled or altered
height, or utilization at the end of the too much, there may be more damage than
growing season indicates the net effect of recovery in other periods. Therefore,
grazing. It can be measured in key areas, streambank alteration may be used as a
critical areas, or designated monitoring areas trigger for livestock movement or as an
15
indicator of effects in short-term monitoring. analysis. A change in frequency may trigger
It should not be used as a management the need to collect more detailed data
objective. However, it is related to regarding species density, cover, or
streambank stability, which may be an composition by weight. Frequency data
appropriate objective where it is a concern. have also been used to evaluate riparian
Cowley and Burton (2005) provide guidance community condition by the Humboldt
for monitoring both streambank alteration Toiyabe National Forest (Weixelman et al.
and streambank stability. Because of other 1996 and 1999).
issues with riparian functionality, streams
may incise and streambank alteration may Production – There are several different
increase while stability decreases for reasons methods for measuring production,
that do not reflect current grazing including clip and weigh, volumetric,
management. Measuring streambank comparative yield, dry weight rank, and
alteration is more useful on certain stream estimation techniques (BLM 1999a).
types and certain periods of channel change. Specific changes in production by species
(species composition) may indicate
MONITORING METHODS – successional progression or retrogression or
LONG-TERM MONITORING transitions among states (as described in
state and transition models (See Appendix
Ground Photography – Representative B). Production has been used to describe
photographs taken at permanent locations ecological sites and is used to describe and
are effective and efficient for documenting assess plant community objectives.
existing conditions as well as displaying
change over time. Consistent techniques are Cover – Plants can be easily measured by
essential. These techniques are discussed in cover, the amount of area covered by plant
the photography section of the Ranchers’ materials. Because different decision rules
Monitoring Guide, (Perryman et al., 2006) can lead to very different cover numbers for
and in Appendix G. the same vegetation, it is critical to be clear
which technique is used and to follow the
Remote Sensing – Procedures involving rules carefully (canopy cover, foliar cover,
new and old satellite and aerial imagery ground cover, and basal cover are defined in
coupled with GIS and GPS techniques the glossary, Appendix P).
provide strong potential for detecting change
in vegetation, soils, waters, and other Canopy/Foliar Cover – Canopy cover, the
landscape attributes. See Appendix G. percent of ground covered by a vertical
projection of the outermost perimeter of the
Frequency – Frequency measurements natural spread of foliage, including small
often indicate changes in species openings, may exceed 100%. This is often
composition density or dispersion. This collected using line intercept (BLM 1999a)
objective tool for recording the number of and can also be collected with grid plots or
plots or quadrats that contain each species Daubenmire frames (BLM 1999a). Canopy
can be used to assess trend in long-term cover provides many useful interpretations,
monitoring (refer to Appendix J for detailed (e.g. sagebrush cover has often been used to
field procedures). As the frequency concept describe habitat values and make
has evolved, nested frequency is now highly management recommendations (e.g.,
recommended because of the importance of Rassmussen et al., 2001)). However,
quadrat size and the need to have frequency canopy cover of herbaceous species varies
data in the mid range (10-90%) for proper
16
greatly from year to year and is not objectives relate to vegetation away from the
recommended for grasses and forbs. stream edge.
More commonly, community types or
Ground Cover – Ground cover is an dominance types are monitored along the
important vegetation and soil-surface greenline (Winward 2000) or streamside
attribute. It is most often referred to as the (Perryman et al., 2006) because of the
percentage of ground surface covered by tremendous importance of vegetation where
vegetation at the root crown. In long-term it can buffer the forces of flowing water and
monitoring, it may be desirable to measure influence sediment deposition. The
the percent bare ground, litter, rock, greenline is the first line of perennial
biological soil crusts, as well as basal cover vegetation on or near the low water edge.
of live vegetation by species, life form, or Most often it occurs at or slightly below the
functional groups. These cover bankfull stage. For more details about these
characteristics can be determined in methods see Winward (2000) or Cowly and
conjunction with frequency sampling by Burton (2005). Similar data without the
recording “hits” at marked points on a tape, species identified can be collected by life
or corners of a frequency frame or grid. form along the water’s edge (see the
However, this sampling intensity may not Ranchers’ Monitoring Guide, (Perryman et
provide an adequate measure of basal cover al., 2006)).
of individual plant species, and conclusions Winward (2000) presents guidelines for
about basal cover should not be made setting long-term management objectives by
without a large enough sample size. riparian capability groups. Objectives for
Change in ground cover is an important designated monitoring areas should also be
aspect of trend. It is very useful for based on an understanding of stream
establishing planning objectives. It is also dynamics and the processes of stream
used to determine if favorable or recovery after channel incision or other
unfavorable conditions exist for germination problems using Rosgen (1996) stream
and establishment of new plants, and to classification or a geomorphic analysis and
assess nutrient cycling. Appendix L further PFC assessment (Prichard et al., 1998).
describes a procedure for obtaining ground Greenline transects sometimes measure
cover data. revegetation on pointbars. However, they
may not if the greenline happens to be well
Community-Type Transects -- In riparian above the revegetating pointbar. To capture
areas, where the number of species is often vegetation trends quickly, the pointbar may
greater than on uplands, and where many be a place of focus in management
plant species are rhizomatous, community objectives.
types can be used as the unit of measure. In
areas where community types are not well Greenline-to-Greenline Width – Another
classified or understood by the observers, way to assess pointbar revegetation and the
vegetation can also be observed and narrowing of streams is to measure the
recorded by noting the dominant species in greenline-to-greenline width (Cowley and
plots or in patches of similar vegetation. Burton 2005). Often pointbars are the first
Cross-valley transect data are collected places to show changes in riparian
along five parallel transects that cross the vegetation when management allows
riparian area perpendicular to the long axis colonizers to take root, capture fine
of the riparian area (e.g., valley) (Winward sediment, and start succession or move it
2000). They are used where management toward stabilizing plant species. For this
reason pointbars are featured in lotic riparian
17
PFC assessment (Prichard et al., 1998). quality, land managers often target stream
However, point bars are also places of channels (e.g., width/depth ratio) for
natural sediment deposition, and colonizers improvement through management.
may be washed away or buried. Therefore,
pointbar measurements, although often Stream Survey – The General Aquatic
interesting and useful, can also mislead if Wildlife Survey (GAWS) (USFS 1985) and
not interpreted in light of intervening flow BLM Stream Survey (BLM 2001b) provide
records. valuable baseline information (since the late
1970s) and have often guided management
Riparian Shrubs – Winward (2000) and changes. These surveys contain
Cowley and Burton (2005) also describe photographs in addition to stream and fish
methods for monitoring woody species habitat measurements and riparian
regeneration. Both methods may require observations related to optimal conditions
some practice in order to collect consistent for cold-water fish (but not in relation to site
results (Coles-Ritchie et al. 2004). Riparian potential). Stream survey scores generally
shrubs can also be monitored with line do not make useful management objectives
intersects or air photos for canopy cover, because they combine numerous variables
which can be augmented with height for representing a variety of driving factors into
measurements of canopy volume. Doing one index. Index improvement is only
this requires careful consideration to match partially tied to specific management actions
methods with site potential and management or plans. An index may not change while
objectives. Where wildlife habitat the components of it change measurably,
considerations warrant, a robel pole can be some increasing and others declining.
used to measure visual obstruction at various Combining the understanding of process
heights (BLM 1999a). developed through riparian proper
functioning condition assessment with the
Streambank Stability – Cowley and Burton quantification from stream surveys leads to
(2005) describe streambank stability as a greater utility from both data sets.
combination of cover and stability against
erosion or mass wasting. Streambanks are Water Quality – BLM and the Forest
covered and stable if they are covered with Service comply with the Clean Water Act,
perennial vegetation, cobble-size or larger the Safe Drinking Water Act, and other
rock, or anchored wood, and they do not federal laws and Executive Orders, that
have indications of erosion, breakdown, require attainment and maintenance of water
shearing, or trampling that exposes plant quality standards. Protocols for monitoring
roots. Change in streambank stability may water quality attributes such as various plant
reflect incision, healing, or accumulated nutrients, temperature, fecal coliform, etc.
damage from use impacts such as have been developed and are used by the
streambank alteration. Failure to improve Nevada Division of Environmental
may also reflect nonfunctional conditions Protection (NDEP) and other agencies. The
such as concentrated stream energy after NDEP has signed a memorandum of
channel incision. understanding with the Bureau of Land
Management and Forest Service, addressing
Stream Channel Attributes – Because authorities and protocols for water quality
channel morphology provides habitat monitoring. Care should be used in
features important to fish for hiding or interpreting water quality data because it
foraging, and because stream morphology often does not reflect current management,
also affects channel stability and water but rather a combination of watershed and
18
upstream factors such as geology, climate,
channel geomorphology and dynamics, etc. Weed Maps – Maps of weed inventories
Where there are water quality problems, can show patterns of dispersal. They help
it is usually best to determine the underlying identify vectors and track the long-term
causes and to manage and monitor eradication of individual populations. Maps
accordingly. For example, streams that are can also be used with sampling for tracking
not functioning properly may have poor weed density or weed control treatments.
water quality. Managing and monitoring for The value of these maps depends on the
appropriate riparian vegetation is usually the accuracy and completeness of the weed
most effective way to address water quality inventory data used to create them. Weed
problems. Riparian vegetation maps, vector use areas, maps of disturbance,
improvements occur much sooner than and remote sensing can help stratify the
improvements to stream channels, which landscape and prioritize areas for
occur more quickly than changes in water coordinated weed surveillance and mapping.
quality but which drive those changes Because weed management and monitoring
(Wyman et al., 2006). are so important, continued development of
monitoring protocols are expected and
DETECTING PATTERNS OF needed. One critical activity is consistently
VEGETATION CHANGE ACROSS A recording into a permanent record the
LANDSCAPE random observations of agency personnel,
ranchers, and other land users. Continued
Some vegetation changes occur on a skill building in weed identification will add
landscape scale, such as an expanding plant value to these efforts.
community (e.g., advancing pinyon/juniper
or invasive weeds) or as cumulative effects Plant Community Boundaries –
(e.g., increased acreage of dominance by Vegetation measurements across an edge of
annuals). Monitoring these changes helps a plant community are better for noting
to identify transitions across thresholds, changes over a smaller distance or where
from one state to another. (See information greater precision is warranted, (e.g., the
on state and transition models in Appendix expansion or contraction of a weed patch or
B.) Although such changes can be detected riparian meadow). This can be
or tracked with many individual plots, it is accomplished through a variety of
much more efficient to track landscape vegetation measurements with species noted
patterns with photos or other remote by location along transects.
sensing, maps, or transects across the edges
of community types. While some
landscape-scale issues or changes are easy to
observe, others can be detected through the
use of pattern analysis techniques. Suitable
data are needed for these analyses. It is
imperative to include location markers for
georeferencing.
Photos or Other Remote Sensing --
Vegetation changes visible at the landscape
scale can be tracked with remote sensing
when images are interpreted correctly.
Stereo coverage is desirable (Appendix G).
19
SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNIQUES AND their use of forage may change with season,
INFORMATION ecological site, etc. It is often easier to
monitor habitat. When monitoring habitat,
Supplemental information and first consideration should be given to
techniques are helpful and often essential for ecological capability and processes and the
the interpretation and proper use of short- ability of a site or landscape to provide
and long-term monitoring data in making various seasonal habitat needs. The key to
decisions on management changes. Any determining what to monitor in the short-
special conditions or events should be term and long-term is to focus on the
documented. Some of the more useful objectives in the management plan. For
supplemental information includes guidance on habitat-effects monitoring, refer
identifying forage use by different species, to previous sections on short- and long-term
using plant phenology for documentation of monitoring. Monitoring wildlife numbers,
animal location, monitoring fire-related season, duration, and area of use provides
phenomenon, using exclosures and information analogous to livestock use
comparison areas, analyzing grazing use and records. The Nevada Department of
utilization data with the grazing response Wildlife (NDOW) uses population data to
index, and apparent trend. set hunting seasons, evaluate attainment of
population objectives, and evaluate
Wildlife, Wild Horse and Burro, and population stability.
Livestock Interactions – Wildlife use can Where overlap among herbivores occurs,
have a measurable impact on Nevada monitoring utilization and other habitat
rangelands and sometimes should be interactions should be based on
monitored. There is a vast diversity of documentation of spatial and temporal
wildlife species on Nevada rangelands; overlap among species and documentation
however, this section primarily focuses on of dietary overlap. When seasons of use do
large ungulates, wild horses, and burros. not overlap, utilization monitoring at the end
Furthermore, this monitoring emphasis of each season-of-use is possible and
recognizes that all species require and utilization can be clearly assigned to one
impact habitats. herbivore (so long as subsequent growth and
Large herbivore (wild and domestic) loss are also considered). Properly timed
interactions in a rangeland setting are movement of utilization cages is necessary
complex. They depend upon habitat to calibrate measurements at different times
conditions and the age and physiological of the year. If seasons of use partially
status of the animals. Therefore, whether overlap and it is important to estimate
the interactions are benign, negative, or utilization levels for each herbivore,
positive depends in part upon how the utilization measurements must be taken at
animals are managed. In managing for multiple times. This is more complicated
habitat, the focus on interactions among and requires multiple sampling periods.
wildlife, wild horses and burros, and
livestock is similar. Monitoring of all large Phenology – Plant phenology is the study of
herbivore use requires similar information the plant’s life cycle, e.g., leaf emergence,
regarding effects of use (utilization, bank flowering, seed ripening, etc. in relation to
alteration, etc.) and numbers of animals by seasonal weather factors. Because the time
season, duration, and area of use in relation of occurrence of phenological events is to a
to offsetting recovery processes. large degree controlled by the weather,
Wildlife are often very difficult to plants can be used as indicators of
monitor because they are highly mobile and differences in growing conditions.
20
Phenological data (Appendix I) are helpful ungrazed conditions. Comparison areas are
for understanding monitoring observations locations (without livestock grazing) where
and measurements. Observations of forage the natural plant community has been
species growth stages (especially critical protected from livestock grazing but
growth stages such as the 3-4 leaf stage and exposed to natural disturbances such as
flowering of grasses) relative to the timing drought, wildfire, insects, and grazing by
of livestock movements are very useful native fauna. Comparison areas are used,
because the effect of grazing differs in along with other methods, to determine the
response to mechanisms of plant response composition and production that a particular
that vary by growth stage. ecological site is capable of producing with
different historical management. They are
Fire-Related Monitoring – When fire helpful as a gauge or comparison for
occurs on rangelands, management should measurement when considering
be adjusted accordingly. Monitoring should management objectives or monitoring
recognize this influence and document species composition and trend. The history
where, when, and the effects of fire for and location of these areas should be
planning and implementing needed changes. documented. Examples of comparison areas
Information on pre-fire conditions (e.g., fuel may include:
load, species composition, transitions to 1. Areas protected from domestic livestock
other states (Appendix B)) is often critical grazing because of inaccessibility or lack
for making treatment and management of water.
decisions. Such information may be 2. Sites with high ecological status,
available from permanent transects, aerial resilience, and resistance to transitioning
photos, soil surveys, ecological site across a threshold.
descriptions, etc. 3. Large exclosures, highway or railroad
Post-fire monitoring includes fire rights-of-way, old cemeteries, or other
effects, treatment, and follow-up areas that have been protected from
management. Burned areas often attract use livestock grazing for several years.
by wildlife, wild horses and burros, and/or (These areas can give useful
livestock if allowed. Mapping this use can information, but they can also be
help explain patterns of recovery or lack misleading because of the effects of
thereof. One of the most important burned local micro-environment, weather
area observations to map is the viability of conditions, past disturbances, or
the remaining vegetation, especially the vegetation stagnation.)
herbaceous perennials and important shrubs.
Treatments should be well documented Grazing Response Index (GRI) – This tool
including actual location, seed mixes, combines several components of a grazing
effective seeding rate, methods used, strategy – frequency of defoliation, intensity
weather, etc. Post-fire monitoring measures of use on green leaves, and opportunity for
vegetation response and movement toward growth or regrowth – to estimate the impact
desired plant communities. Adaptive of grazing on plants. Frequency is the
management is crucial to achieve desired number of times plants were grazed during
results. of the grazing season. Intensity of use is
utilization during the growing period.
Exclosures and Comparison Areas – Opportunity is the time available to plants
Exclosures are customarily used for visual for active growth or regrowth before or after
observation and studies to compare grazing. Opportunity is perhaps the most
vegetation change under grazed and important factor for allowing plant growth
21
over the long term. The grazing response provides a space for recording specific
index in the Ranchers’ Monitoring Guide decisions about monitoring that will happen
(Perryman et al., 2006) may be very useful at each of the study sites, key areas, critical
as a planning tool or as an evaluation tool areas, photo points, or designated
for understanding actual use records, monitoring areas. If the tables are not used
growing season or phenology notes, and as forms, all the same information should be
utilization or residual vegetation data. It thought about and recorded in a narrative
must be stressed at this time that the grazing monitoring plan.
response index is most applicable and useful The Public Lands Council (PLC) and
to the livestock and land managers as a Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
planning tool. GRI is not, and never should entered into a national memorandum of
be, used as an objective or a standard. understanding (MOU) in 2004 to encourage
and support cooperative rangeland
Apparent Trend – Trend is the direction of monitoring between BLM and permittees.
change in an attribute as observed over time The MOU was transmitted to BLM offices by
(Bedell 1998 NRCS 2003). Apparent trend IM WO-2004-179. The MOU and subsequent
refers to one-time observations of soil and BLM Washington Office materials provided
vegetation conditions on rangelands in the guidance for implementing cooperative
absence of or to supplement measured trend monitoring. Participation in cooperative
data. It relies on soil and vegetation monitoring in compliance with the MOU
indicators and in this way is very similar to and guidance is also Nevada BLM policy.
the more modern concept of rangeland In 2005, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and
health assessment described in the Inventory the PLC entered into a similar national
and Assessment of Base Resources section memorandum of understanding. The USFS
above. It should only be done by an did not provide guidance at the Washington
experienced observer and should always be Office level, but participation in cooperative
clearly identified as apparent trend. monitoring in compliance with the MOU is
Apparent trend indicators can be recorded also Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest
when taking data at key areas. These policy.
observations should only be used to identify Monitoring of federally managed
or focus on areas where additional rangelands by a livestock producer
monitoring and management may be necessitates a Cooperative Monitoring Plan
necessary. if the rancher’s monitoring data are to be
accepted, used by the agency, and become
part of the official record for the allotment
DEVELOPING A COOPERATIVE or use area. To be most useful in ongoing
MONITORING PLAN management and legal protection,
monitoring data must become part of the
A monitoring plan specifies who is
official record.
going to do what (short-term monitoring, as
A Cooperative Monitoring Plan is a
well as long-term monitoring), where, and
Monitoring Plan (described above)
when, to provide a basis for adjusting
developed jointly with the agency(ies),
management according to monitoring
rancher(s), and possibly others. Typically, a
results. An adequate management plan
cooperative monitoring plan will outline the
contains a monitoring plan related to
sites, resource issues (if any), resource
objectives and relevant to actions.
objectives, monitoring methods, and who is
Appendix M, Table 1 provides a monitoring
responsible for collecting the data, when,
plan template. Appendix M, Table 2
and where. Usually, the livestock operator
22
will focus on and collect short-term monitoring data are not used for these
monitoring information (livestock actual purposes, rangeland managers are not
use, photos, some type of utilization data, managing.
etc.) on an annual basis and agency range
staff will collect long-term trend data
(progress toward objectives). However,
some ranchers will also want to collect long-
term data (repeat photographs coupled with
quantitative data tied to objectives collected
over a period of five or more years). And,
agencies may want to validate short-term
data.
Appendix A provides specific and
detailed information on how to set up and
initiate a Cooperative Monitoring plan based
largely on the Nevada State BLM Director’s
Information Bulletin on Cooperative
Monitoring with modifications to meet
Forest Service needs.
INTERPRETATION AND USE OF
MONITORING DATA
Monitoring data must be interpreted and
used to track progress toward achievement
of land use plan and/or activity plan
objectives (See Appendix N). Monitoring
data can help identify linkages among
conditions, objectives, and management
within the setting. It can be used as
evidence supporting decisions to continue or
modify existing management. Monitoring
data can also be used to validate goals and
objectives. To summarize, monitoring data
are used to:
1. Determine the affects of management
actions on resource production, and
economic conditions and values;
2. Determine the effectiveness of
management actions in achieving
objectives within the planned
timeframes;
3. Support management actions and their
modification; and
4. Periodically review the validity of
resource condition and value objectives.
Monitoring is a key integral component of
management, not an end in itself. If
23
APPENDIX A – other implementation plans, grazing project
COOPERATIVE MONITORING plans, and Land and Resource Management
Plans (Forest Plans). Ultimately, to be
If you are a permittee, contact your BLM successful, the management must address the
or Forest Service range conservationist and objectives, and the monitoring must measure
tell them you want to start a cooperative indicators or components of the objectives that
monitoring program. If you are an agency are affected by the management.
rangeland manager and want one of your
permittees to begin monitoring, contact them • Monitoring gives us a limited view of the
about the idea. Implementing a cooperative complex interactions among physical and
monitoring program is relatively easy, biological processes, resource, social, and
though it will take some time, effort, and economic conditions, and management.
thought to get a useful monitoring plan in Overly simplistic or unrealistic monitoring
place. On March 1, 2006, Nevada State plans can lead to disappointment. Here are
BLM Director Ron Wenker released some basic ideas to keep in mind.
Information Bulletin No. NV-2006-0023 • Honest and continuing communications
regarding Cooperative Monitoring. He are essential to successful cooperative
referred to this Nevada Rangeland monitoring. Gaps in communications and
Monitoring Handbook and ongoing Nevada differences in expectations or interpretations
educational programs about rangeland need to be continuously addressed. Such
management and monitoring. A portion of differences between agencies and permittees
that Bulletin is included or adapted below occur, because our basic goals only
for reference because it provides useful partially overlap.
insight for setting up a cooperative • Figuring out the site specific
monitoring program and plan. relationships among the objectives,
management, indicators, and monitoring is
While use of these Nevada educational an expected part of the monitoring process.
resources is recommended, it is not required Continually reevaluate and be open to
for participation in BLM/permittee cooperative adjusting the monitoring and the
monitoring. All BLM authorized monitoring management.
methods are acceptable. Three Technical • Monitoring that tells whether or not
References identify most of the BLM accepted management is achieving the rangeland
vegetation monitoring methods; TR-1730-1, health standards or other objectives is
“Measuring and Monitoring Plant usually long-term monitoring. This is
Populations,” 1998; TR-1734-4, “Sampling especially true for uplands in arid climates
Vegetation Attributes,” 1996; and TR-1734-3, like Nevada.
“Utilization Studies and Residual • Not all monitoring results are as
Measurements,” 1996. (All three are available expected. This can be due to many factors
at www.blm.gov/nstc/library/techref.htm.) other than non-compliance, including:
Resource, management, and economic The action didn’t really address the
objectives can arise from many sources. problem or the objective.
Resource objectives for BLM lands can be o The monitoring didn’t adequately
found in land use plans, multiple use decisions measure the effects of management on
(MUDs), allotment management plans (AMPs), the objectives.
habitat management plans, herd management o Expect it to take some time for all parties
area plans, and biological opinions, to name a to adjust to changes in how things are
few. Information about resource objectives for done. Or change causes wrecks, so it
the Forest Service can be found in AMPs,
1
may take awhile for a change to actually operating on a shared common
be implemented as planned. Three years allotment). At a minimum those people
is a commonly used time frame for a responsible for livestock’s movement on
permittee to train their cattle to different your rangelands, private and public,
management. need to be on board and participating
• Keep each year’s monitoring in from the onset.
perspective. Generally, look at the big 5) Do not be afraid to ask for help. State
picture. Maintain a positive outlook. office staffs of the federal land
management agencies are aware and
Crucial elements of a joint cooperative supportive of the Joint Cooperative
monitoring program: Monitoring program and can provide
1) Coordination requires frequent assistance. These individuals can assist
communication between permittee and you and the District office to clarify the
the agency rangeland manager. A agency policy regarding joint
valuable benefit of honest and frequent cooperative monitoring; and how to set
communication is that both parties gain up and get a monitoring program started.
an understanding of each others’ values, Your local Extension Educator will also
needs, abilities, etc. and will most likely be willing to assist you in this endeavor
develop a better working relationship and can get assistance from Cooperative
over time. Frequent coordination and Extension state specialists or other
communication is the key to avoiding faculty at the University. The Nevada
misunderstanding, ensuring both parties Department of Agriculture can also
know what monitoring is being done and assist in initiating a cooperative
why. The results of monitoring that is monitoring program and plan. If you
developed by both parties will be more prefer to obtain the assistance of a
acceptable and defensible if there are private range consultant, they can also
challenges, and on-the-ground assist you.
improvement will be achieved.
2) The cooperative monitoring program Stepwise procedure for establishing and
should be voluntary and both parties continuing a joint Cooperative
need to want success and to achieve Monitoring Program – Permittee
great stewardship objectives. participation in cooperative monitoring is
often voluntary. It can be tailored to the
3) Both parties need to confirm their
specific permittee’s issues, background, and
sincere interest in securing the long-term
available resources. Ideally, permittees and
health of the resources. This is often
agencies will make cooperative monitoring a
assumed as a given, however, it is
high priority. To the extent that a permittee
important that both parties hear each
is interested in participating in cooperative
other affirm this goal. This could be the
monitoring, but feels that the following is
first point of agreement, but if you
more than he/she is interested in,
cannot both agree on this point, there is
cooperative monitoring can be developed to
no need to proceed further in a joint
address specific issues or the complete
monitoring program.
picture at a level that is feasible and
4) Make the effort to get support of the comfortable.
administrative hierarchy in the agency
and the ranch operation (and other
operators on the allotment, if you are
2
covered all necessary topics during this
1) To begin, the permittee and agency process, as well as in the field.
range specialist might discuss what each 4) The second meeting should be in the
hopes to accomplish through cooperative field at your monitoring site(s). The tour
monitoring, why they want to participate should be constructive and not
in cooperative monitoring, and the issues confrontational. The purpose is to help
or concerns they would like to address. everyone fully understand the resource,
They might also identify the level of associated concerns, and important
commitment each can make to operational issues, i.e., livestock
cooperative monitoring and the movement, infrastructure requirements,
importance of this allotment to the livestock water locations, wildlife
permittee’s and agency’s operation. habitat needs, fire or potential fire
They might discuss how the subsequent impacts, etc. Be sure to have a copy of
monitoring data are going to be used and your completed Monitoring Plan form
how responsive either can be to making and the Ranchers’ Monitoring Guide
different kinds of changes. For (Perryman et al., 2006) with blank forms
example, adding several troughs to an on hand for reference during the tour.
existing pipeline can be done in about On this tour you should:
one year, but significant changes in
livestock numbers will take at least three a) Identify the Objective/s for the
years, especially increases. What is Allotment -- This is an extremely
most important is that they get started. important and critical step. (See,
Most of the above issues will become Resource Objectives, Pages 2-6
apparent as cooperative monitoring (especially pages 5-6) and Appendix
unfolds. D.) Objectives identify data
2) Make copies of all pertinent allotment requirements and determine what
information from the agency official monitoring methods are required and
allotment file. Make copies of the how often measurements need to be
agency management and monitoring taken. This will ultimately guide
plan for your allotments. The livestock livestock movement. Objective/s
operator should have a copy of this and monitoring methods must be
information to understand the history developed that can be measured,
and future direction of management of accomplished, and agreed to by all
the allotment. principal parties. Do not skimp on
3) The permittee and agency range staff this task. If objectives have been set,
should review the allotment management discuss why they were selected and
and monitoring plans as an initial if they are correct. Remember
starting point. If no plans are available, resource objectives are SMART (see
it may be very beneficial to develop both pages 5-6).
of these plans in conjunction with b) Identify the Key Area or
establishing a cooperative monitoring Designated Monitoring Area – Key
plan. During the review process, discuss areas should be selected and agreed
any points of concern, i.e., incorrect to jointly. (See, Procedures for
information, missing data, permit Selecting Key Areas and Key
administration, etc. The Monitoring Species, Appendix F.) If key areas
Plan Form and Monitoring Area Form in have already been selected, they each
Appendix M can be useful in organizing need to be reconfirmed jointly as
your thoughts and assuring that you have
3
correct and at an appropriate site for protocols that you can perform that
the objective that is representative of provide the data requirements
the allotment. If a site is not necessary to track livestock or other
reconfirmed as the appropriate managements’ impacts, positive or
monitoring site, consideration must negative, over time. Make sure that
be given to the historical data the monitoring plan is achievable
associated with the site and a and not unnecessarily complicated or
determination should be made time consuming. If you are not
whether or not to continue confident in your ability to carry out
monitoring this site to retain trend the monitoring program, get help.
information. A Designated 5) Follow Through – See the Ranchers’
Monitoring Area (DMA) or Critical
Monitoring Guide (Perryman et al.,
Area may be jointly chosen that is
2006). Once a cooperative monitoring
not a key area (Appendix F). The
plan is developed everyone must be
DMA will focus on an important and
diligent in carrying out their respective
specific issue unique to that
roles. Whenever possible, both agency
particular site. The DMA will
and permittee should collect short- and
usually not be representative of
long-term data together. When together,
management of the whole allotment
collecting data is a great time to ask
and only represent a site specific
questions, discuss management ideas,
issue. If a DMA is chosen, a key
and develop a common understanding
area representative of the remainder
for collaboration given the realities of
of the allotment must also be chosen.
response potentials, timelines, work
c) Clarify the Resource loads, budgets, and outside funding.
Objectives – Describe how This does not mean that both parties
objectives will look at each study must be together every time that
site. Identify key species (Appendix monitoring data is collected, but advance
F) and describe how they will change communication of when data will be
(if any) and vary through time if collected must be shared and the option
management is successful. Often an to attend left open. The Ranchers’
increase or decrease will be called Monitoring Guide (Perryman et al.,
for. However, this cannot go on 2006) provides a selection of monitoring
forever and eventually species methods that are agency approved,
composition will change in new generally easy to use, require a limited
directions because of plant amount of time, and tend to produce
succession, fire, etc. Check to be consistently reliable results. Not all
sure that objectives for each study methods in the Ranchers’ Monitoring
area are meaningful, realistic, and Guide should be used at a monitoring
related to management. site. The method or methods selected
will depend upon the resource objective,
d) Affirm, Modify, or Develop
ability and time of the data collector, etc.
Your Allotment Monitoring Plan
as Necessary -- Do not be afraid to Keep it simple, effective, and correct to
request other specialists, both from assure the best data possible. With the
within the agency or from other enthusiasm to start a new project, do not
agencies, and University staff. Take commit to more monitoring than needed
the time and make the effort to nor more than both parties will make
establish a plan and set monitoring time for in their busy schedules.
4
6) Interpretation and Use of data – See monitoring site is correct; or if
“Interpretation and Use of Monitoring management should be modified. Once
Data”, Pages 21 in the Nevada the analysis and interpretation is made,
Rangeland Monitoring Handbook, and then a determination of action for the
Appendix N, Interpretation and Use of subsequent grazing season must be
Monitoring Information. Once data are made. This must be done
collected, copies of the data must be collaboratively between the permittee(s)
shared and maintained by both parties. and agency rangeland manager(s), at a
In order to be of use, the data must also minimum. A collaborative and adaptive
be analyzed to determine what, if any, management approach provides the best
effects management had upon the format and process for this type of
objectives; if the objective/s, triggers, management to succeed.
and /or indicators are correct; if the
5
APPENDIX B – The historic climax plant community for
ECOLOGICAL SITES an ecological site is not a precise assembly
of species for which the proportions are the
Ecological Sites are interpretive units same from place to place or even in the
into which landscapes of native vegetation same place from year to year. In all plant
are separated for study, evaluation, and communities, variability is apparent in
management. An ecological site, as defined productivity and occurrence of individual
for rangeland, is a distinctive kind of land species. Variability (within reasonable
with specific physical characteristics that limits) is the rule rather than the exception.
differs from other kinds of land in its ability Boundaries of plant communities, however,
to produce a distinctive kind and amount of can be recognized by characteristic patterns
vegetation (NRCS 1997). of species or groups of species that dominate
a site. Because of their stability in the
Historical Climax Plant Community –
historic climax plant community, these
The ecological site is a product of all the
dominant (or co-dominant) species can be
environmental factors responsible for its
used to identify sites and to help
development including soils, climate,
differentiate one site from another.
topography, and natural disturbances. The
Generally, non-dominant plant species
natural plant community of an ecological
(including invasive species), fluctuate
site in the absence of abnormal disturbances
greatly according to local differences in
and physical site deterioration is referred to
microenvironment or weather conditions.
as the historic climax plant community for
that site. The historic climax plant Ecological Sites – Each ecological site is
community (as defined by the NRCS) is that recognized and described based on
assemblage of plants presumed to be in characteristics that differentiate it from other
place on an ecological site at the time of sites in the ability to produce and support a
European immigration and settlement in characteristic plant community.
North America. Plant communities change along
The historic climax plant community is environmental gradients. Where changes in
the plant community that was best adapted soil, topography, or moisture conditions are
to the unique combination of environmental abrupt, plant community boundaries are
factors associated with the site. It is the distinct and easily observed. Boundaries are
plant community that was able to avoid broader and less distinct where plant
displacement by the mix of disturbances and communities change gradually along wide
disturbance patterns (magnitude and environmental gradients of relatively
frequency) that naturally occurred within the uniform soils and topography. The
landscapes occupied by the site. Natural important consideration is that, even though
disturbances, such as drought, fire, grazing plant communities tend to be aligned along a
of native fauna, and insects, were inherent in continuum, distinctive plant communities
the development and maintenance of these can be identified and described. Where
plant communities. Fluctuations in plant native plant communities occur with
community structure and function caused by predictable regularity and are associated
the effects of these natural disturbances with concurrent differences in soil, climate,
establish the boundaries of dynamic hydrology, or landscape position that can
equilibrium for a site. These fluctuations are also be identified, an ecological site is
accounted for as part of the range of recognized and a site description is
characteristics for an ecological site as developed. Of necessity, boundaries
presented in the ecological site description. between ecological sites along a continuum
1
of closely related soils and a gradually accessibility, or other management
changing climate are somewhat arbitrary. considerations). Site differentiation is based
solely on those soil characteristics, response
The criteria used to differentiate one
to disturbance, and environmental factors
ecological site from another are:
that directly affect the nature of the historic
1) When there are significant changes in climax plant community composition and
the plant species or groups of species production.
that are ecological dominants in the
Ecological site descriptions developed
historic climax plant community. A
for use in Nevada reference the "typifying"
dominant species is one that makes up
environmental factors and disturbance
more than 10 percent of the total annual
regimes that have been correlated to the
production (air-dry weight) in the
occurrence of a given historic climax plant
historic climax plant community.
community.
2) When there are significant differences in
In assessing the characteristic vegetation
the proportions of species or species
best adapted to a site, such natural
groups (i.e., grasses, forbs, shrubs), that
disturbances as drought, wildfire, grazing by
are the ecological dominants of the
native fauna and insects are recognized as
historic climax plant community. More
inherent in the development and
than a 20-percent departure (air-dry
maintenance of the original plant
weight) in a given species or species
community. Plant communities that are
group occurrence within the historic
subjected to abnormal disturbances and
climax plant community is considered
physical site deterioration or that are
significant.
protected from natural influences, such as
3) Where there are significant differences fire and grazing, for long periods seldom
in the total annual production of the typify the historic climax plant community.
historic climax plant community. For
Severe physical deterioration can
plant communities capable of annual
permanently alter an ecological site’s
production less than about 500
potential to support the original or historic
pounds/acre, a 50-percent difference in
climax plant community. Examples include
total production is significant. For plant
a permanently lowered water table caused
communities capable of annual
by gullying or severe soil erosion by water
production between 500 and 1,000
or wind. When an ecological site's potential
pounds/acre, a 30-percent difference in
to produce a characteristic plant community
total production is significant. A 20-
has been permanently altered, a different
percent difference in total annual
ecological site is recognized based on the
production for plant communities
new/altered site potential.
producing more than 1,000 pounds/acre
is significant. Naturally occurring wildfire is thought
to have crossed sagebrush-grass
Any differences in the above criteria,
communities within Nevada’s northern
either singly or in combination, great
desert shrublands on an average of every 15
enough to indicate a different use potential
to 100 years, depending on site productivity
or to require different management, provide
and topographic position. Mountain big
a basis for recognizing a different ecological
sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp.
site. However, ecological sites are NOT
differentiated on factors that have no direct vasyana) communities are assumed to have
affect on the character of the historic climax been maintained under a natural fire regime
plant community (i.e., livestock distribution, where the period between burns was about
2
20-25 years (15 to 30 years). For high which the vegetation has been partially or
elevation, relatively productive, low completely removed.
sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula) and black Vegetation dynamics on an ecological
sagebrush (Artemisia nova) communities site include succession and retrogression.
and mid-elevation Wyoming big sagebrush The pathway of secondary succession is
(Artemisia tridentata ssp. Wyomingensis), a often not simply a reversal of disturbances
fire frequency of about 40 years (35 to 50 responsible for retrogression and may not
years) is assumed. In the driest sagebrush follow the same pathway as primary
communities (i.e., dwarf sagebrush on wind succession.
swept mountain ridges, low-elevation
Wyoming big sagebrush, Lahontan State and Transition Models – Plant
sagebrush, and less productive dwarf community state and transition models are
sagebrush communities), fire frequencies of being developed to describe vegetation
more than 50 years (50 to 75+ years) are dynamics and management interactions
assumed. Return intervals for wildfire in associated with each ecological site. These
pinyon-juniper communities is assumed to models provide a method to organize and
be much greater than for the communicate complex information about
associated/adjacent rangeland (sagebrush- vegetation response to disturbances (fire,
bunchgrass) communities. With the lack of fire, drought, insects, disease, etc.)
exception of very productive, perennial and management.
grass-dominant plant communities, natural A State is a recognizable complex of the
fire is not considered to have been a major soil resource and associated above-ground
influence in the maintenance of most salt vegetation occurring within a characteristic
desert shrub and Mojave Desert climate. Phases within a State describe
communities of Nevada. different plant communities with
Succession and Retrogression – characteristics that cycle, or vary, back and
Succession is the process of soil and plant forth through time, or in response to natural
community development on an ecological disturbances, management, or weather.
site. Retrogression is the change in species Ecological processes connect the soil and
composition away from the historic climax vegetation within a State to sustain a
plant community due to management or "dynamic equilibrium" within a specified
severe natural climatic events. range in variation for plant species
composition (or the set of associated
Succession occurs over time and is a Phases). Primary ecological processes for
result of interactions of climate, soil an ecological site include the reproduction
development, plant growth, and natural of important plant species, energy and
disturbances. Plant succession (as defined nutrient cycling; and the capture, storage,
by NRCS) is the progressive replacement of and safe release of water from precipitation.
plant communities on an ecological site that
leads to development of the historic climax Resilience and resistance determine the
plant community. stability of a State and of the various Phases
within a State. Resistance refers to the
Primary succession is the formation capability of a State to absorb disturbance
process that begins on substrates having and stresses and to retain ecological process
never previously supported any vegetation functions. A resistant State tends to stay
(lava flows, volcanic ash deposits, ancient near equilibrium conditions with less
lake beds, etc.). Secondary succession variation in ecological processes. Resilience
occurs on previously formed soil from refers to the amount of disturbance or stress
3
a state can endure and still regain its original community and eventually the soil resource.
function after the disturbances and stresses A new stable State is formed when the
are removed. A resilient State can vary system reestablishes equilibrium among the
widely following disturbance and then altered primary ecological processes.
return to the equilibrium condition. Movement across a threshold to a new
Resilient plant communities require only State often represents a loss of, or at least a
adjustments to management, if any, before change in, resource values such as wildlife
the functioning of ecological processes habitat, livestock forage, watershed
returns the system to equilibrium following functions, and/or soil protection. Some
a disturbance. transitions and new States also reflect an
Transitions are directions, or trajectories, increase in wildfire hazard, increased risk of
of vegetation and soil change that will result spreading invasive weed seeds, or an
in an altered functioning of one or more of a increased risk of accelerated soil loss.
State’s primary ecological processes. Each State reflects a different set of
Transitional pathways reflect changes within management possibilities and management
a State that are reversible so long as they do methods. The vegetation within each State
not exceed the resistance or resilience changes with the seral stages in plant
thresholds of the State. A transition can be succession (or Phases) recognized for the
triggered by natural events, management State. The role of managers is to work with
actions, or both. Some transitions may ecological processes to facilitate change
occur very quickly and others over a long along desired pathways and to prevent
period. Two aspects of a transition are transitions to less desirable states. Within
recognized: reversible and irreversible. each State certain management strategies
Prior to crossing a threshold, a transition is work better for keeping a plant community
reversible and represents an opportunity to resilient or resistant and keeping vegetation
reverse or arrest the change. Conventional productive.
management practices are used to reverse
the transition. Once a threshold is crossed, In general, keeping a desired plant
however, the transition is irreversible community from irreversibly transitioning
without significant inputs of management, across a threshold is much less expensive
dollars, and energy. than returning an undesirable, degraded,
State to a more desirable State. Restoring
States are relatively stable and resistant ecological processes and returning a site it to
to change caused by disturbances up to a its original State often requires more drastic
threshold point. A threshold is the boundary actions that are expensive and risky.
between two States such that one or more of However, some potential States provide
the primary ecological processes has been such vastly better products and services than
irreversibly changed. Irreversible implies their current State, that people invest much
that restoration cannot be accomplished time and money in restoration, attempting to
through natural events or a simple change in reverse an undesired transition. The top
management. Active restoration (brush priority for large land areas is to implement
management, range planting, prescribed management actions that maintain a
burning, etc.) must be accomplished before a landscape’s (multiple plant communities)
return to a previous State is possible. Once a resilience, so less of it crosses a threshold,
threshold is crossed, a disequilibrium among becoming less productive with fewer
one or more of the primary ecological management options. This strategy is
processes exists and will be expressed especially true for areas where a change in
through changes in the vegetative
4
management could address the responsible
stress or stresses and reverse a transition
before it is too late.
The Ecological Site description
represents a continuing endeavor to collect
and categorize knowledge about the nature
of native plant communities. A State and
Transition model can be used to describe
vegetation dynamics and management
interactions associated with each ecological
site. Ecological Site descriptions and State
and Transition models help evaluate
management, guide further study, and
provide for proper use opportunities. More
than 900 different ecological sites have been
described in Nevada. Ecological site
descriptions for each Major Land Resource
Area in Nevada are available from the
NRCS).
Wayne Burkhardt, Professor of Range
Science at the University of Nevada, Reno
(retired), aptly defined the development of
ecological site descriptions as simply, "…a
continuing process of approximation…"
Each site description is an approximation of
a characteristic vegetation and the
environmental factors that are reasoned to
support this plant community. The initial
description of a historic climax plant
community for an ecological site and the
State and Transition Pathways (especially
Thresholds) should be considered as an
approximation, subject to modification as
additional knowledge is obtained.
5
APPENDIX C – Appendix I provides a form for recording
growing conditions and recommendations
DROUGHT
for management actions. Observations may
lead to altered management within the
Climate and weather must be considered season to minimize impact to range plants.
for the interpretation of monitoring. In arid Furthermore, the level of use often
regions especially, drought is an important increases during drought unless management
climatic factor that must be considered as changes are implemented. This may be
changes are evaluated. Drought along with especially evident near riparian areas where
fires and unusually wet conditions of use is concentrated because intermittent
flooding are common reasons why streams have dried up early. Conversely,
flexibility in management is so important. upstream or downstream areas without water
Drought is defined in a number of ways, but may receive less or shorter use. Careful
is often described as a series of years when management in post drought years may be
low rainfall and moderate to high especially important for recovery after the
temperatures exceed some average. Drought stress of drought. Hence there is a need to
may be considered as “a period of track where drought induced management
abnormally dry weather sufficiently stress is or will be located so that managers
prolonged for the lack of water to cause can avoid or mitigate it. Maintaining short-
serious hydrologic imbalance in the affected term monitoring records through droughts
area.” The Society for Range Management helps interpret long-term monitoring data.
(Bedell 1998) defines drought as: (1) a
prolonged, chronic shortage of water, as
compared to the norm, often associated with
high temperatures and winds during spring,
summer, and fall; and (2) a period of
reduced precipitation during which the soil
water content is reduced to such an extent
that plants suffer. Drought modifies the
structure of rangelands by changing
vegetation composition. The management
of these plants before, during, and after
drought influences the impact of the drought
and rate of plant recovery following relief
from drought conditions. Drought modifies
the function of rangelands by influencing
species composition, biomass production,
nutrient cycling, and soil properties.
Understanding how individual plants
respond to drought and how ecological
processes on rangelands are affected by
drought allow us to interpret drought effects
on monitoring data.
Monitoring helps managers detect,
record, and understand drought impacts for
appropriate management. Plants that
normally have time to recover after grazing
may not have soil moisture to do so.
1
APPENDIX D – • Spring grazing for three weeks may lead
ESTABLISHING GOOD OBJECTIVES to:
• at least a four-inch stubble height along
Generally, objectives are developed the greenline of the stream. Over a
from opportunities or concerns recognized at period of years this could lead to
the beginning of the planning process. They • a measurable increase in colonizers on
can be resource or economic conditions or the streambank and on pointbars.
trends that need to be addressed (reduced, Then, in a moderate flood this leads to
improved, or maintained) in the plan. • deposition of fine sediments among the
Focusing on an opportunity or an issue colonizers. Improved growing
creates a shared vision and helps stimulate conditions then lead to
thought.
• an increase in greenline stabilizers
Setting objectives is at the beginning of
through a period of years. More stable
the nine-step planning process used by
riparian vegetation leads to
NRCS for developing conservation plans.
• narrowing a stream by some
(NRCS 1999 (National Planning Procedures
measurable amount after a drought and
Handbook and NRCS 2003 National Range
flood cycle. With
and Pasture Handbook)) Landowners set
goals and objectives for private land. • increased floodplain access, the aquifer
Generally, these address the need to make an recharges during peak flows. Stored
income through the intended land use(s) and water leads to
may encompass a wide range of other • improved base flow. More water in the
values. stream leads to
Once objectives are established, • improved water quality and better fish
managers must refer to them to ensure habitat. Better habitat leads to
movement toward the desired conditions or • fish population increases. With more
outcomes. Monitoring specifically related to fish to catch,
the objectives indicates whether progress is • recreationists have more fun.
being made or may indicate that
management or objectives need revision. In this example, each of the italicized
changes could be measured (although some
Objectives In The Ecosystem not easily) but only a few, the bold ones,
Management Context – Rangelands are would drive reasonable resource
complex and dynamic. Establishment of management objectives. Spring grazing and
appropriate management objectives must the four-inch stubble height are easily
consider this complexity as well as societal monitored. They are management tools or
values. Objectives must be achievable indicators of plan implementation, not
within a useful timeframe, measurable, and objectives1 (Clary and Leininger 2000;
worthy of the management needed to meet University of Idaho Stubble Height Review
them and the monitoring needed to assess Team 2004).
them. (See section on Setting Objectives, The increase in colonizers, stabilizers,
Page 4.) Management often causes a chain and narrowing of the stream are easily
reaction, leading to questions about how to measured objectives that indicate changes in
identify the best resource management resource conditions. While water quality
objective.
1
In some existing plans, utilization objectives are
stated. These should be considered as indicators in
the context of this publication. Presumably they are
Riparian example:
aimed at achieving some objective.
1
can be monitored, water quality measures
vary greatly on a daily or even hourly basis Upland example:
and monitoring them is less informative than • A rotation grazing system may lead to
monitoring the other resource attributes. All • an opportunity for plants to grow when
of these changes occur over a series of years not grazed, grazing during use periods
(possibly decades) and flow events. As short enough to avoid numerous repeat
indicated by the chain reaction, defoliations, and moderate utilization on
improvement in average water quality key species at the end of the growing
depends on the prior changes in riparian season. With decreased plant stress this
vegetation and channel conditions and, leads to
therefore, it takes longer. Which attribute is • increased vigor of the palatable
best to choose as a monitoring objective perennial herbaceous community,
depends in part on the time frame for the slowing the rate of sagebrush
management plan. domination, and slowing the decline of
The described management uses herbaceous production. This
ecologic and hydrologic processes that cause management could then lead to
the riparian system to function properly and • maintaining at least a certain
spiral upward toward other goals, e.g., more percentage of decreasers in the
fish and recreational satisfaction. These herbaceous community. This maintains
goals would not make effective resource at least some of the conditions for fire
management objectives because they depend use which leads to
on a number of factors that are outside of the • Occasional wildfire and fire use. This
control of management, are too far removed leads to a mosaic of fire effects which
from the management action, or are difficult leads to
or expensive to measure. Riparian • keeping a landscape in the herbaceous
functionality is often a standard that is state with variable amounts of
assessed. Although not quantifiable, the sagebrush cover in different places at
assessment procedure, Assessing Proper different times, which leads to
Functioning Condition (PFC) in Prichard
• regaining or retaining rangeland health
et.al. (1993, 1994, 1998 and 2003), is an
which leads to
extremely useful tool for recognizing
• maintaining high quality habitats for
riparian areas at risk, understanding the need
sage grouse and other sagebrush-
for management, and setting resource
dependent wildlife as well as habitats for
objectives.
grassland-dependent species.
In general, riparian objectives address
Maintaining viable populations of
the composition of streambank (greenline)
wildlife and economically viable ranches
vegetation, streambank stability, and/or
across a landscape leads to
woody species regeneration (University of
• maintaining a socially and economically
Idaho Stubble Height Review Team 2004;
viable community of people.
Cowley and Burton 2005). Because riparian
vegetation and bank stability drive channel
In this example, each of the italicized
form changes (e.g., width), they are resource
changes could be measured but only a few,
attributes suitable as long-term objectives.
the bold ones, would drive reasonable
The closer the linkage between management
resource management objectives. Rotation
treatment (e.g., grazing management) and
grazing, with its opportunity for plant
resource attribute change (e.g., vegetation
growth, low frequency of use, and moderate
composition), the more useful the objective
utilization, are easily monitored. They are
is in the adaptive management process.
2
management tools or indicators of plan In recent decades, many rangeland
implementation (short-term monitoring), not management objectives have used range
objectives for long-term monitoring. condition classes or seral stages for
The percentage of decreasers in the describing objectives. Unfortunately, many
herbaceous community, maintenance of the desired changes in species composition are
herbaceous state, variable amounts of not well described by this approach.
sagebrush cover, and certain other attributes Ecological thinking has moved away from
of habitats are easily measured objectives this thought process. An alternative to
that indicate changes in resource conditions. condition classes or seral stages is to clearly
Rangeland health and high quality habitat describe the changes that are desired from a
must be defined in such measurable terms to particular management plan or action by
be monitored. While populations of wildlife describing the desired plant communities
and the economic viability of ranches and (DPC). In doing so, it remains necessary to
communities can be monitored, populations ensure:
and economic variables vary greatly on a 1) DPCs are within the potential of the
monthly and yearly basis and monitoring ecological site and soil. Describing
them is less informative than monitoring the desired vegetation from the same
other resource attributes. All of these ecological site in a nearby area under
changes occur over a series of years different management is one way to
(possibly decades) and with differing ensure that changes are possible.
weather. As indicated by the chain reaction, Monitoring records from successful
goals, such as the improvement in wildlife management are extremely useful for
populations, depend on the prior changes in describing what’s possible.
habitat (or upon preventing certain changes) 2) DPCs address the most important
and, therefore, the effects of management concern(s) of rangeland health. Often
accumulate over many years. Which the most important changes to describe
attribute is best to choose as a monitoring in objectives are those that will lead the
objective depends in part on the timeframe community away from the risk of
for the management. crossing an ecological threshold (see
The described management uses Appendix B).
ecological processes that cause the system to 3) DPCs do not create conflicts with
regain or retain rangeland health and spiral rangeland health. Some plant
upward toward other goals, e.g., more communities might be desirable for
wildlife and economic viability. These some resource value, but are not
goals would not make effective resource sustainable and should not be the
management objectives because they depend objective for management if there are
on a number of factors that are outside the sustainable alternatives. (The desire to
control of management, are too far removed achieve useful vegetation characteristics
from the management action, or are difficult may lead to a plant community that is
or expensive to measure. Rangeland health unable to provide these values after a
is often a standard that is assessed. The threshold is crossed and the community
assessment procedure, Interpreting is no longer resilient to disturbances
Indicators of Rangeland Health (Pellant et such as fire (e. g., a shrub state
al., 2005) is a useful tool for recognizing sagebrush-dominated plant community
areas at risk, understanding the need for without a resilient understory).
management, and focusing resource 4) DPCs are described in a manner that
objectives. recognizes they will naturally change
through time. Describing any plant
3
community objective should recognize (DMA 2) so that by 2015* at least 65 %
the changing nature of rangeland of the greenline has a willow overstory
vegetation due to plant succession, or a willow plant within 1 meter of the
natural disturbance regimes, and the greenline.
vagaries of year-to-year weather, insect 3. Increase bank stability along Sand Creek
infestations, etc. so that by 2010 at least 80% of the banks
are stable within DMA 3.
Combining goals, management actions, 4. Reduce greenline-to-greenline width
and objectives – Rangelands comprise along 80% of Gray Gulch Gully in DMA
many different types of land, different 4 within 15 years.
ecological sites, different historical uses and 5. Within the West Canyon above the
management (e.g., native and seeded riparian pasture, increase the length of
rangeland), and goals that vary across the valley bottom covered by willow
landscape and through time. The goals for canopies or other riparian shrubs from
an allotment could include regaining and 60% (2005) to 80% by 2015*.
then retaining rangeland health across the 6. By 2015* (assuming that the years
land and proper functioning condition in the between 2005 and 2015 experience at
riparian areas. Management of these large least two years with below 75% snow
areas often integrates livestock, wild horse, pack followed by at least one year with
and wildlife management, as well as direct above 125% snow pack) the bankfull
vegetation management such as weed channel width at riparian monitoring
control, vegetation treatments, and fire station 2 (GPS Location___) along Deer
management. It may also involve recreation Creek in South Allotment Riparian
management and other activities. Because it Pasture will narrow from 12 to < 10 feet.
is impossible to micromanage large areas (This objective requires more than just
and impossible to not manage, it is critical livestock management and time to be
for managers to focus on measurable met and, therefore, the flow regime
objectives that lead to identified goals. caveat is stated.)
Some management objectives should apply 7. At monitoring station 3 in the South
to specific areas, such as key areas that Pasture, a loamy 8-10 ecological site,
represent important goals. Other objectives achieve by 2011* and maintain
should address the mix of vegetation across thereafter an herbaceous community
a landscape to address goals requiring the composed of at least 60% by weight of
integration of resource conditions. (See Karl decreaser species (e.g., thurbers
2005.) needlegrass, needleandthread, or Indian
ricegrass) or a ratio of 2:1 between
Examples of good objectives: (Assuming decreaser and increaser species (e.g.,
these objectives are achievable and worthy sandberg’s bluegrass, squirreltail, phlox,
of the management and monitoring cost.) or prickley gilia), with no plants on the
1. Increase by 15 percent the proportion of State noxious weed list.
the greenline that is dominated by 8. The landscape scale objective for
deep/densely rooted riparian species or mountain big sagebrush sites in the
late seral community types (Winward Purple Mountains is to retain at least 90
2000) within 10 years (by 2016*) on percent of the acreage with sufficient
Rose Creek in Big Meadow (designated perennial herbaceous vegetation to fully
monitoring area (DMA)1). occupy most areas within one year after
2. Facilitate willow establishment on the the event of a wildfire.
point bars of Fish Creek in south pasture
4
9. The landscape scale objective for all Objectives should be based on the
sagebrush sites in the Purple Mountains current and potential condition of the site, be
is to maintain a shrub cover of 5-25 connected through cause and effect to the
percent on at least 50 percent of the area management plan, be measurable, and allow
and to have no areas exceeding the for adjustments due to unusual weather or
maximum shrub cover identified within other conditions.
the historic climax plant community for
*
that ecological site. (Note, this objective Often the timeline for meeting objectives
could be accomplished with livestock provides an indication of expected results given
our present understanding and assuming a
grazing management, including careful normal range of variation of the factors that drive
management of the understory and the changes, such as weather. When not stated
occasional treatments to use livestock to explicitly in an objective, this assumption should
diminish sagebrush. However, it would be made clear in the management plan so that
normally be accompanied by livestock failure to meet (or early attainment of) an
objective does not suggest any arbitrary
management and other means, such as standards.
mechanical or chemical shrub control or
the use of prescribed fire.)
10. Eradicate the five known populations of
perennial pepperweed in the Elderberry
Creek watershed by 2010,* while
continuing surveillance to detect and
eradicate new populations.
11. Remove pinyon and juniper trees from
20 percent of Phase II encroachment
areas inventoried on Sage Grouse
Mountain by 2015*. (Phase II
encroachment is the period after pinyon
or juniper trees have become established
throughout a sagebrush area, during
which their continued growth, and some
continued recruitment, leads to reduction
(through competition) of most of the
herbaceous and shrub understory on
many ecological sites.)
12. At key area one, attain and retain a
frequency (16” frame) of Indian
ricegrass of 20 percent or more.
13. Allow aspen regeneration to exceed the
height of browsing at or near Rock
Spring resulting in at least a 10%
increase in the young age class (1-5-inch
diameter at breast height) by 2011*.
14. Maintain aspen at Rock Spring for
diverse age classes, with at least 10
percent of the stems in the young age
class.
5
APPENDIX E - ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
At its most simplistic level, adaptive management is “learning by doing.” Continuous feedback
and revision can make management increasingly effective, efficient, and accountable.
Management and monitoring are designed in concert to achieve the objectives and optimize the
information gained. Management is evaluated in light of this information and continued or
revised based on progress toward the objectives. The following is a basic model of adaptive
management. While there may be a beginning to successful adaptive management, there is not
an end.
Start
Assess Situation. Formulate Model.
Develop Objectives
& Management
ADAPTIVE
Adjust or Continue: Carefully
Actions, Objectives & MANAGEMENT Implement
Model MODEL Management
Objectively Monitor
Evaluate Indicators
Outcomes
This model of adaptive management impacts and how they affect the goals
includes six steps. and objectives and explains how
• Assess the existing condition of the management actions will influence the
resources or values of interest. stressors and modify the status of the
• Formulate a model of the situation, objectives. To manage successfully we
develop objectives and management to must ferret out these relationships. Just
achieve them. This is an important and knowing that conditions are not meeting
potentially difficult step. The model is a our expectations does not determine the
conceptual description of the existing causes, or identify what (if anything) can
situation that identifies stressors or be changed to meet the objectives.
1
Almost without exception, every activity result, it can be difficult to accept, or
has the potential for positive and even recognize, results that suggest the
negative affects. Therefore, we must management actions are not working, the
seek out the causes and effects. Not objectives should be adjusted, or the
understanding these relationships often model needs to be modified. The
leads to a default solution of limiting participants need to be continuously
some suspected activities. vigilant of such factors. Positive
• Carefully implement the management outcomes reinforce the model and
actions. objectives and provide data to support
• Monitor indicators. The ecosystems, continuation of the management.
landscapes, and allotments we manage • Adjust or continue.
are complex. We cannot possibly • Continue adaptive management.
monitor all attributes. The conceptual
model helps identify indicators. A fundamental observation of successful
Effective indicators respond in a manner adaptive management is that, not only do
that mirrors ecosystem dynamics, and resource conditions improve, but the
responds to the applied management. participants evolve and in unpredictable
Responses to management are ways. This process often begins with the
measurable and can be differentiated realization that our perceived understanding
from natural variability. of the situation was imperfect and, as a
• Objectively evaluate the outcomes. The result, we are not able to completely predict
model is used to help evaluate the the outcomes of management. On-going
monitoring information. Typically by monitoring, evaluating, and adapting brings
this step much time, effort, and thought increased knowledge and surprises. We
has been invested. Participants tend to have to expect and accept both.
have ownership in the decisions. As a
2
APPENDIX F – 2. Relate key area locations to allotment
PROCEDURES FOR SELECTING KEY specific objectives. To do this, gather
AREAS AND KEY SPECIES the Standards and Guidelines; Land Use
plan goals and objectives; and any
Key Areas – A key area is a relatively small allotment specific goals and objectives
portion of a unit selected as a representative from allotment management plans or
monitoring point for measuring change in other pertinent documents. The
vegetation or soil and the impacts of attributes of the objectives(s) monitored
management. It is chosen because of its must be present on the area selected.
location, use, and value. It is assumed that 3. Refine objectives for each key area at
key areas, if properly located, will reflect the the time they are set up in the field based
current management over similar important on potential to represent management
areas in the unit. They should serve as objectives. Consider the management
representative samples for long- and/or plan, including triggers and end-of-
short-term monitoring (e.g., range season indicators.
conditions, trends, seasonal degrees of use, 4. Overlay use pattern map, water
resource production, etc.). Key areas may locations, and vegetation map together
be selected to represent a particular plant on a base map. Look for the most
community, a specific ecological site, or productive soils and sites with the
some other significant portion of a highest use. Heavy or moderate use
management unit. Rangeland managers, areas targeted for improvement in the
livestock operators, and others who know plan and that are no farther than a mile
the range should cooperatively select key from water are good places to put a key
areas based on management objectives. Key area (closer than 1 mile in a small
areas for long-term monitoring should also pasture). Slight to light use areas do not
be used for short-term monitoring. To select tell much unless they are used to
a key area: compare trend or production between
1. Consult standards and guides and land heavy or moderate and slight use areas.
use and activity plan objectives. Use a A key area should represent an area that
vegetation map, aerial photo, soil survey, provides a significant amount, but not
ecological site inventory, and whatever necessarily the greatest amount, of
other useful information is available for available forage in the pasture. This can
the allotment. Use these to determine be ascertained from an evaluation of the
soils, ecological sites, ecological status, utilization and ecological site maps,
and/or state and risk of transition, if together with an on-site examination.
possible. Map vegetation types in the 5. Choose area(s) representative of the
allotment or pasture, if possible. Key suitable seasonal range or use area. Two
management areas should be located or more key areas may be needed for
where the ecological situation is well large pastures, pastures that have very
understood. They should not bridge two rough topography or widely spaced
or more ecological sites. Soil taxonomy water, various areas where animals tend
must be confirmed in the field because to locate, areas where different kinds of
soil inclusions lead to differing animals graze, or where the pasture is
potentials within the same ecological site grazed at different seasons. One key
(e.g., sandy surface textures produce area may represent more than one
more perennial grass than finer soil pasture only if they are in the same
surface textures). grazing system with similar ecological
sites, conditions, topography, water,
1
treatments, etc. Large, unfenced concentration areas. And, stay away
allotments may require many more key from roadsides or other disturbances.
areas than implied above. 11. Where multiple herbivore (wild and
6. Determine the plant community domestic) use is significant, select key
potential. The site must have the areas as needed.
potential to improve or decline. That is, 12. Confine monitoring studies on a key area
there must be sufficient plants of the key within the boundary of a single soil,
species (those plants identified in single land form, and single plant
management objectives) that an increase community or ecological site. The Key
is predicted from the management plan Area Location Form included in this
and enough that they could decline if appendix is an example for recording the
management does not achieve objectives location and specific selection criteria.
or does not work or get implemented 13. Consider the season of use and class of
correctly. Within an ecological site, the animal because diet preferences change
area between abundant and sparse by season, kind, and class of animal.
vegetation of the key species is often the 14. Establish new key area(s) and
best place to establish studies. For discontinue reading old key areas if they
example, between abundant and sparse do not address management objectives.
fourwing saltbush in the Sandy Loam 5– This can happen when the pattern of
8” p.z., Ecological Site of MLRA 29-A grazing use is significantly modified
change in abundance of key species will because of a difference in season of use,
show up quickly. Whereas, sparsely kinds or classes of grazing animals,
populated areas that may have crossed a pasture size, water supplies, or other
threshold have little or no potential to factors affecting grazing distribution or
improve vegetation and may only go the management plan.
downward in trend. A study placed in
the center of a patch of abundant or very Designated Monitoring Areas – In
little fourwing will take years to show riparian zones, areas selected for short-
change. It may be necessary to establish and long-term monitoring may be called
a study in such areas if a new water designated monitoring areas (DMAs)
source is to be developed in it or if (Cowley and Burton 2005). In riparian
livestock management changes and this areas, key, critical, or designated
will influence the plant community. monitoring areas should:
Studies in healthy rangeland can also be 1. Represent management concerns within
used for comparison areas. the riparian area as reflected by riparian
7. Do not establish a key area in a small, PFC assessments, management plans,
atypical location. and especially management objectives
8. Establish key areas in sites that (e.g., be associated with spawning areas
herbivores prefer. for listed fish, if spawning habitat is
9. Ensure that key areas are accessible to targeted by recovery plans).
grazing animals because of favorable 2. Have the potential to respond to the
factors influencing livestock distribution. planned management. For example, a
Areas remote from water or having recent gully or recently incised stream is
limited accessibility may be suitable for not suitable because it no longer has the
comparison areas but should not be ability for vegetation to influence
selected as key areas. channel stability and riparian functions.
10. Avoid water sources, trails, corrals, This will eventually return as the
historic salt grounds, shade, and other channel widens and develops the area
2
needed for a new floodplain and riparian because of their importance, be considered
vegetation inside the gully. Functional- in the management program. Generally:
at-risk reaches are often a higher priority 1. Key species should represent objectives
for management and monitoring than are and be a significant component of the
nonfunctional or properly functioning potential desired plant community. The
reaches. species selected should be those that
3. Have the species present that will be respond to management. Key forage
needed to respond to management species should be ones that respond to
objectives and have suitable places for grazing management
them to grow. 2. Key forage species should be palatable
4. Respond similarly to similar reaches, if to the grazing animals during the
there are similar reaches in the unit. planned season of use. (Very palatable
They should not be located on isolated plants that have low production potential
atypical areas such as where trails enter should not be selected as key species.
or cross a riparian area, water gaps, Species with low palatability or lower
“postage stamp” locations surrounded by palatability than the preferred species
willow thickets, etc. should not be selected. These give a
5. Be characterized by existing stream falsely high or low use reading, leading
survey or PFC assessment locations (if to under use or excessive use on the
they meet the above criteria) because of more palatable forage species.)
the existence of historic photos and data. 3. Key species should be perennial except
Other historic photo sites may also be on annual rangelands, and be selected
suitable, if they meet the criteria. after:
a) Choosing the key area and
Critical Management Areas – Critical evaluating the present plant
management areas must be treated with community.
special consideration because of inherent b) Deciding the plant community or
site factors, size, location, conditions, important plants that will reflect the
values, or significant potential conflicts objectives.
among uses. It may be important to c) Giving due consideration to planned
designate and monitor critical areas as key management, such as kinds and
areas because they have a significant classes of grazing animals and
resource value or concern. However, critical season of use.
areas may not be extensive in area and do d) Thoroughly evaluating the factors
not reflect the management of the entire affecting grazing distribution. If
grazing unit. Critical management areas only one kind of animal grazes the
may include: pastures, a single plant species
1. Critical habitat for wildlife; generally may suffice as the key
2. Areas having threatened or endangered species.
species;
3. Highly erodible areas;
4. Isolated aspen patches; or
5. Riparian areas.
Key Species – These are often key forage
species that indicate the degree of use of
associated species or species which must,
3
Study Site Location
Key Area Name and/or Number
District/Ranch Observer
Allotment Name and Number (if any)
Pasture Name and Number
Wild Horse or Burro Herd Management Area
Habitat Management Plan Area
Wildlife Season of Use
Soil Series or Map ID Ecological Site/Soil Taxonomic Unit
Key species
Location Township Range Section 1/4 1/4
GPS Lat. Long./UTM Elevation Slope Aspect
Current Plant Community Dominants
Key species
Types of Studies Established
Site location selection criteria narrative:
Site Location Map and Narrative: Show witness post location and bearing from known
landmark, also approximate scale. Indicate easiest access.
4
APPENDIX G – available and obtained via the National Air
REMOTE SENSING Photo Program (NAPP),
TO MONITOR RANGELANDS http://edc.usgs.gov/products/aerial/napp.htm
l. These photographs were acquired from an
Aerial Remote Sensing – Aerial remote altitude of 20,000 feet and are available in
sensing has strong potential to assist in the black & white (B/W) or color infrared
monitoring of rangelands. However, this (CIR), depending on location and date. Each
technology has not yet been successfully photo is centered on one-quarter section of a
used to monitor rangeland vegetation except 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle, and covers
for some specific applications. The practice approximately a 5.5 x 5.5-mile area. Data
and science of remote sensing is changing are obtained on five- to seven-year intervals,
very rapidly. For many years the National which is an appropriate timeframe for
Aeronautics and Space Administration rangeland monitoring. Cost for these
(NASA) suggested using remote sensing to excellent images (1m GSD) is $100 for a
evaluate rangeland characteristics. This twenty-square-mile area.
potential has not been realized because of LANDSAT7 data (15m GSD) can be
several factors: 1) cost – the acquisition, acquired from MapMart at
analysis, and interpretation of remotely http://www.mapmart.com/ for $600 per
sensed data is not yet feasible to evaluate scene. You can also evaluate LANDSAT
large areas of rangeland; 2) since it is directly by accessing
expensive, sub-sampling expansive areas is http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/. Each scene
necessary; 3) trained interpreters that covers about 100 square miles. These costs
understand both rangeland ecology and the seem somewhat reasonable, but as the
capabilities of various remote sensing and acreage increases, the costs can become
image-analysis systems are essential. prohibitive.
A brief discussion of costs and some Other potential applications are light
types of available imagery follows. In the detection and ranging (LIDAR) and
future, those who wish to monitor using Inferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar
remote sensing technology will have to (IFSAR), which offer potential for
constantly determine what new applications rangelands involving radar (e.g., tree height
have been developed and how they might be or erosion/deposition along rivers) including
used to monitor rangelands. Prices are rapid terrain visualization
likely to change through time. http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/sparcle/spar
To obtain single meter and, in some cle_tutorial.html.
cases, sub-meter resolution, panchromatic The Moderate Resolution Imaging
satellite data are available from the Spectroradiometer system (MODIS) is the
IKONOS satellite (1m grid size replacement for Advanced Very High
dimension(GSD) go to Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) data and
http://www.spaceimaging.com/products/iko now gives up to 200m resolution over large
nos/. The cost for digital color data is about land areas.
$7.50 per square kilometer with a minimum The Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging
order of 100 square kilometers. For the Spectrometer (AVIRIS) is a multispectral
Quick Bird (60 cm GSD), go to system with 224 spectral channels in the 400
http://www.digitalglobe.com/ satellites. The to 2500 nanometer range and, while the
costs are $46 per square mile with a value of many of the bands has not been
minimum order of $450. proven for rangeland applications, the
For most states, high quality 1m- importance of such systems may be realized
resolution color infrared imagery is in the future.
1
SPOT (Systeme Pour l'Observation de la $0.03 per acre (although this is not full
Terre) coverage, as are Landsat, Quickbird,
(http://www.spotimage.fr/html/_167_.php) IKONOS, and NAPP images). Perhaps this
offers multiresolution imagery to meet digital color data (1 mm ground sample
multiscale needs from 2.5 m to 20 m. distance) can be extrapolated upward to
To make remote sensing work and to even larger areas with proper interpretation.
realize its great potential will take Riparian areas were flown separately, and at
considerable effort by managers to actually a lower resolution and larger field of view,
use this medium. It will require multiscale because of their different vegetation
sampling procedures. The LANDSAT7 structure and relative importance.
ETM may be used as part of this The VLSA example represents
extrapolation process, along with other monitoring at only the watershed/allotment
satellite data and the NAPP data. Software level and the extrapolation to the regional or
for batch processing photographic samples national level has not been attempted.
by automatic analysis needs improvement However, as methods for automated range
for greater accuracy, consistency, precision, vegetation measurement are improved,
and calibration. sampling protocols refined, and data storage
Remote sampling and automated image and utilization in GIS mapping are
analysis apply at various scales for implemented, the potential for using these
rangeland monitoring efforts. Some current data in the application of remotely sensed
generation programs are capable of data to measure bare ground as part of
processing hundreds of digital color images regional and national rangeland monitoring
in less than five minutes providing bare programs will become reality.
ground measurement accuracies of around A land manager’s strategy should be to
70 percent (Booth et al., unpublished data). follow the research and development of
For large areas, this may be considerably remote sensing systems and determine when
more accurate than single site and how they can be used for rangeland
“representative” sampling. Preliminary monitoring. As part of this effort, the
work with more sophisticated software marriage of remote sensing data to GIS
(Feature Analyst) showed accuracy (Geographic Information System) and GPS
approaching 90percent, but this software (Global Positioning System) data will
cannot yet batch process images at the same become commonplace. Recently, efforts
rate as VegMeasure. supported by the U.S. Department of
Work is currently underway to develop Homeland Security has led to a program
and implement a protocol for sub-sampling called ARIES (Airborne Rapid Imaging for
of allotments or watershed rangeland areas. Emergency Response) (see EarthData at
Very Large Scale Aerial imagery (VLSA) http://www.earthdata.com/about.html),
will provide procedures to solve what is which describes how ARIES can collect
bound to be a somewhat difficult sub- color digital imagery, LIDAR terrain
sampling problem. Dr. Terry Booth, profiles, and thermal data. ARIES also
Agricultural Research Service, Cheyenne, downloads the data from the aircraft to a
Wyoming, in his research on Wyoming, transportable ground processing center using
Nevada, and other rangelands, has been able a direct wireless downlink, processes the
to use flight transects to obtain reasonable data, and disseminates the data through a
measurements of average bare ground wireless internet connection to users in the
percentages by allotment and average bare field. While we do not require data with
ground by watershed at a cost (for the one such speed, except for fire control and fire
watershed for which figures are available) of use, to achieve resource management
2
objectives, the development of these 6. Obtain one landscape photo and one or
protocols will certainly lead to timely two close-up photos of the vegetation
accession of high quality, remotely sensed along each transect.
data of high resolution for rangeland 7. For the close-up photos, use a specific
monitoring applications. Then all that plot size and have some scale marker in
remains is the training and use of quality the photo such as a foot ruler or pole
people with good rangeland ecology and with 6-inch color changes (e.g., red and
management skills to provide the white). Use a similar procedure each
interpretation. time you take photos for the site. These
photos will be taken vertically over the
Ground Photography – In both riparian plot or at a low oblique angle. You
and upland range areas, photography is an should try to be consistent in how you
excellent tool for capturing short-term obtain the photos.
monitoring information. Photos taken
before and after use periods can indicate use Photos can be taken with several different
by various herbivores in areas where types of cameras. However, a digital camera is
multiple grazers share the forage base. very useful since the images can be stored on
Photos taken after the use period show the hard drive of your computer or placed on a
seasonal use, and photos at the end of the CD for storage and future reference. They can
grazing and growing season show utilization also be printed out for storage in hard copy.
or residual vegetation or other end of season Place data and photos in file folders. Record
indicators. Photos may focus on streambank notes in a notebook or individual paper for
alteration or other management concerns filing. It is good to record as much of what
that would show up well in a photo. Photos you can see as practical while you are in the
must periodically be taken at key areas or field. It has been the experience of many that
designated monitoring areas. it is not possible to remember all of the salient
features of the site. Save and backup the
Suggestions for taking better photographs data.
include: Photos also make an excellent record of
1. Identify the date and exact location riparian conditions to accompany any long-
within the picture, using a field slate or term or short-term monitoring data. Photos
form (See the Ranchers’ Monitoring are taken at times of stream survey and
Guide by Perryman et al., (2006)). riparian PFC assessment. File photos identify
2. Take the picture during the same stage suitable permanent photo points where they
of plant growth each year, if possible. address management objectives. Generally,
3. Include the same skyline in the riparian photo sets include an upstream,
landscape photos. If possible, include a downstream, and across the stream shot.
distinctive landmark in the background Because riparian trends often lead to an
of the photo. abundance of willows or other riparian
4. Carefully relocate the photo points each vegetation, later photos often show only a
time. This might be done using GPS mass of vegetation hiding the stream.
technology, stakes in the foreground and Therefore, it is often useful to take a photo
a post to set the camera on, and/or taking from a station some distance from the riparian
previous photos into the field. area such as an overlook. In riparian areas, it
5. Use the same lens or focal length lens is more important and more difficult to
and proper settings for light each time. capture a part of the horizon or some unique
feature like a tree or rock outcrop to help with
photo-point relocation.
3
APPENDIX H – includes name(s) or symbol(s) of the key
USE MAPPING, KEY SPECIES species and other common species that were
METHOD, AND PROPER USE routinely grazed, and other allotment or site-
specific observations or indicators that relate
Use Mapping -- Use pattern mapping is an to the level and pattern of grazing use.
excellent way to understand how livestock Further traversing extends boundaries of use
management connects to the rangeland zones until the entire pasture has been
resource in larger pastures. Across the observed, then the approximate number of
West, livestock distribution is commonly the acres within each use zone is recorded on
biggest management problem and the map as illustrated in the Ranchers’
opportunity. It will vary according to slope, Monitoring Guide ((Perryman et al., 2006)).
aspect, location of waters, palatability of The timing for utilization mapping
forages, patterns of residual forage, season depends on objectives. Commonly, use
of use, etc. mapping and utilization measurement occurs
The best kind of base map for at the end of the growing season or the end
delineation of use zones is an aerial photo or of the grazing season, whichever occurs
orthophotoquad showing ecological sites later. It is important to observe utilization
and physical features such as fences, water, during the grazing period to observe use
and roads. Other kinds of maps commonly zones as they develop. Such data or even
used include 1:24,000 topographic maps, observations would be very useful for
1:000,000 maps or even rough sketches (see applying the grazing response index (in the
sample). The mapping procedure involves Ranchers’ Monitoring Guide by Perryman et
traversing the pasture to obtain a general al., (2006)). A seasonal use map would give
concept of how the vegetation has been early indications of livestock distribution
utilized and the pattern of this utilization. problems. It may be advantageous to map
Features such as topography, rockiness, use by wildlife or wild horses and burros
ecological sites, vegetative types, and just prior to livestock turn-in to determine
distance from water affect grazing patterns. use by different kinds of grazing animals.
They are helpful in denoting the extent of Lumping or averaging species for
use zones and mapping their boundaries. utilization monitoring may miss key
The currently used groupings are: 0-5%, information. The exception is an area with
6-20%, 21-40%, 41-60%, 61-80%, 80-94, several forage species of approximately
and 95-100%. Other classes can be used to equal palatability, production, and grazing
maintain continuity with an existing accessibility at the same time of year. Such
management plan or monitoring data set. circumstances are most likely to occur in
Use classes and an approach to judging the wet meadows, riparian areas, or seedings.
degree of utilization are discussed under Key Under these conditions, utilization may be
Species Method Utilization on page 23 of judged for a community rather than for a key
the Interagency Technical Reference species. For example, degree-of-use of
“Utilization Studies and Residual mountain meadow sites could be represented
Measurements”(BLM 1999b). by an average use recorded on the part of the
Mapping proceeds as the pasture is plant community that produces the bulk of
traversed. When another use zone is the forage. On rangelands not meeting the
observed, the name of the new use class and above criteria, do not average use of
approximate boundary of the zone is different species together. In a situation
recorded on the map together with the other where vegetation is needed for riparian
information. Other information that should functions, monitor the vegetation that relates
be recorded for each traversed use zone
1
to these functions such as at the water’s utilization classes, as in use mapping.
edge, the greenline. Utilization cages should be employed in
Use patterns often remain similar from conjunction with this method on key areas to
year to year due to grazed plants’ regrowth provide ungrazed plants to observe while
having enhanced palatability in comparison reading a study or to clip while training.
to ungrazed plants with residual leaves and Utilization cages must be relocated annually
stems, habits of grazing animals, to protect randomly chosen but
topography, and other factors. However, representative plant(s) of the key species in
utilization pattern also changes because of similar growing conditions. The utilization
management actions, development of water, determined on key areas is used with actual
herding, season of use, culling, changing use data, trend in species composition, use
kind or class of livestock, etc. The number patterns, (key species utilization can be used
of years of data needed for interpretation as a component of use pattern mapping)
varies depending on the variation from year weather, and/or supplementary information
to year. Once use patterns are understood, to evaluate whether or not management
they may suggest management changes that changes are needed.
should be considered to adjust the use While key species utilization is broadly
pattern. These changes should also be tied applicable, compare this method with other
to objectives and opportunities for utilization/residual forage methods to choose
enhancing plant health and vigor. one that the best addresses the site-specific
Remember that use pattern mapping shows conditions and objectives. For example,
distribution patterns. As a result residual vegetation is preferred in areas
management changes that effect livestock where vegetation is relatively evenly
distribution should be the first ones tried to dispersed, such as meadows and annual
correct problems based on use pattern grasslands, and where remaining vegetation
mapping. Management changes that effect provides especially important functions in
distribution include water locations, season the dormant season, such as protection from
of use, and use of supplements. Other erosion or sediment trapping. For guidance
changes that may also effect distribution related to monitoring the use of woody
include changing the pastures size or shape, plants, also see the Interagency Technical
animal numbers, duration of grazing period, Reference “Utilization Studies and Residual
vegetation (type conversions), etc. Measurements” (BLM 1999b).
Key Species Method – The Key Species Proper Use – Proper use is a degree of
Method (formerly the Modified Key Forage utilization of current year’s growth that, if
Plant Method) is based on an ocular estimate continued, will achieve objectives and
of the amount of forage removed by weight maintain or improve the long-term
on individual key species. This method is productivity of the site (Bedell 1998).
well described in the interagency technical Proper use is species specific. It may also
reference on utilization studies and residual be affected by the ecological site, and varies
measurements (BLM 1999b). This method to a great degree with the season of use and,
is also described in the Ranchers’ therefore, the opportunity for the plant to
Monitoring Guide (Perryman et al., 2006). grow or regrow, as well as the duration of
Training for this utilization method use, which influences the number of times
requires technicians to compare their ocular the plant is likely to be grazed during the
observations of use with the clipped and growing season.
weighed amount using ungrazed plants. Determination of proper use is part of
Observations are recorded in one of seven the planning process. Local specifications
2
for acceptable degree of use should be based
upon research data and on the experience of
the manager and range user. Considerations
of proper use often drive targets for end-of-
season indicators in allotment management
or multiple-use management plans. Proper
use, based on existing grazing management
and setting should be checked against trend
data to determine if the current proper use is
appropriate or may need to be adjusted.
3
APPENDIX I - GROWING CONDITION INDICATOR CHECKLIST
This form identifies information that rangeland managers will want to consider at various
times when they make decisions that exercise the flexibility in their management plan. The form
can be filled out at the beginning and end of grazing in a pasture or use area, as well as on
specific dates for representative locations such as study sites. It can be used when planning the
sequence of moves through the growing season, before entering a particular pasture, and during
pasture use when contemplating a move or other management action. Filled out forms show
reasons for management actions and become part of the short-term monitoring record for
interpreting long-term monitoring data.
1
Growing Condition Indicator Checklist
Name of the Allotment/Ranch
Use Area/Pasture/Rangeland Area
Name of Observer Date
INDICATOR OBSERVATION
Forage vigor (Does plant height, leaf Below avg.___ average___ above avg. ___
length/width, and color indicate strong vigor?)
Does leader growth of shrubs indicate strong Below avg.___ average___ above avg. ___
vigor?
What is the average height of current year’s Species____________________
growth on a key species? Inches ___________________
Are leaves of deciduous shrubs lost or dead? Below avg.___ average___ above avg. ___
Phenological stage of key species in plant Trees and shrubs ________________________
community? (refer to plant phenology stages Grasses________________________________
table) Forbs__________________________________
Utilization of previous year’s growth (if
observable)
Soil moisture depth ________ Inches
Rainfall for current year Below normal ___ normal ___ above norm ___
Last date of effective precipitation
Physical condition of wild horses, wildlife, Below normal ___ normal ___ above norm ___
livestock
Water source availability Below normal ___ normal ___ above norm ___
Other comments:
Management recommendations:
Plant Phenology Stages
Trees and Shrubs Grasses Forbs
Dormant Dormant Dormant
Leaf growth starts Growth Starts Growth Starts
Twig growth 3+ leaves per tiller Flower stalks appear
Flower buds first visible Flower stalks appear First bloom
Leaves full grown Heads out fully Full bloom (3/4 blossom)
First bloom Anthesis Bloom over (3/4 blossoms dry)
Full bloom (3/4 blossom) Dough seed set Seeds ripe (3/4 dry)
Bloom over Hard seeds Dissemination
Seed ripe Dissemination Plants begin to dry
Dissemination Plants Begin To Dry Plants Dry - Summer, Fall
Leaves Turn Yellow or Brown Plants Dry, Summer, Fall
Leaves dry & begin to drop
2
APPENDIX J – plots within the smaller frame are also
FREQUENCY SAMPLING within the larger frame. Plant size and
PROCEDURES abundance will dictate the appropriate
frame size for data analysis.
Frequency sampling is a rapid, objective Appropriate frame sizes for adequate
means of evaluating the trend of range sampling of typical Great Basin plant
vegetation.2 It has two important advantages communities using a single frame size
over other methods: 1) It is highly objective are found in Table K-1. The objective of
with a minimum amount of human decision the nested frequency approach is to
involved, and 2) It is relatively simple and further assure that all species, especially
easy to perform. Once a frequency transect any key species, will have frequency
design is laid out, human decision is limited percentages between 10 and 90 percent,
to species identification and to whether the and hopefully between 20 and 80
plant is rooted within the frame or not. percent, thus allowing potential for
The following method was described detecting both upward and downward
(with some modifications) in the 1984 trend for all species when initial
Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook. frequencies are relatively high (60-80%).
It was originally based on the work in Smaller vegetation changes can be
Tueller et al., (1972). This method has been measurable with statistical significance.
used extensively by the BLM for uplands. For appropriate sampling, a procedure
The Forest Service uses a slightly different for laying out the presence/absence
nested frequency procedure (FS 2003). quadrats must be used. For example, a
Whatever methods have been used to 100-foot or 30-meter steel tape may be
provide useful data, the same procedure and used to establish a permanently placed
frame size (s) should be used to continue baseline. A spring with a swivel on it is
providing useful consistent data. useful for keeping this tape tight and
straight while it is in use. Surveying
1. Selecting the representative site – pins are useful for securing the baseline
follow the guidance in Appendix F – tape. Stakes for permanently marking the
Key Areas. study area can be made from
2. Sampling procedures – A set of reinforcement bar (rebar). They should
frequency frames of various sizes is be painted a brilliant color to ensure
required. In the 1984 Nevada their relocation from year to year. A
Rangeland Monitoring Handbook, stake-driving hammer is also necessary.
emphasis was given to individual frame To record the data, a clipboard or digital
sizes for specific plant communities. In recording device is useful.
this handbook, emphasis is given to 3. Plot Layout – The example described
nested frequency (BLM 1999a). The here is the one used in the 1984 version
nested approach requires listing the of the handbook and is repeated with
presence of all species within the only a few modifications to maintain
smallest nested plot. Then, the consistency with the considerable data
additional species present in the next gathered over the past 20 plus years,
largest plot are recorded, and so on. All particularly on BLM managed Nevada
rangelands. In this example, the first
2 1
Tueller, P.T., et al., 1972. Methods for step is laying out the baseline (Figure 1).
measuring vegetation changes on Nevada Such a line constitutes a permanent part
rangelands. Nev. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. of the frequency trend plot and may be
16. established by stretching a measuring
1
tape in a representative part of the area to give the best sample for the greatest
to be evaluated. The tape is stretched as number of species on a given ecological
close to the ground as possible and site. Efficiency was evaluated in terms
affixed to the ground with two surveying of data variance and cost (time spent in
pins. A second tape, stretched sampling). Transects consist of groups
perpendicular to the baseline, greatly of quadrats (frames within which
facilitates easy placement of the plots, presence or absence is determined)
keeps the transect perpendicular, and placed contiguously in a belt or at given
defines the remaining side of the plot intervals along the tape. Each transect is
frame. A painted rebar or angle iron or originated at a random footmark
angle aluminum stake placed at a given (metermark) along the baseline. The
distance from a known point will be randomization is restricted so that half of
helpful in relocation. This stake will the transects are randomized on each
then be used to measure out to find one side of the 50-foot or 15-meter mark
end of the baseline. Relocation of the (midpoint of the baseline). When the
baseline ensures repeated sampling in frequency frame is placed on the ground,
the same setting. it forms one quadrat. Continuation of
The second step is to photograph the this procedure through 10 to 20 quadrats
vegetation and soil surface at the transect will constitute a transect. Once a
location. A panoramic and a close up transect is complete, the worker moves
photograph should be taken after the to the next random foot mark and starts
baseline is established for a given again.
transect. This constitutes an historical The presence or absence of a species
record for the site and helps in later depends upon its root location—rooted
interpretation of the data. Take the frequency. If any part of the plant is
panoramic or landscape photo of the rooted inside the frame, it is counted as
vegetation from the reference stake being present. A plant rooted on the
facing in the direction of the baseline. line between two contiguous plots (in
The close-up photograph should be of two plots) is recorded as present in both
the vegetation in a frame off one of the plots.
belt transects. This frame should be 4. Reading the quadrats – This consists
relatively close to the baseline. It is of two very simple decisions. If a plant
important that the frame selected is rooted in the quadrat and the worker
contains vegetation representative of the can recognize the species, then its
site and its location is documented. This presence should be recorded. A form for
allows the picture to be repeated each nested frequency is on page 46 of
time the trend is sampled so the Sampling Vegetation Attributes –
vegetation changes observed represent Interagency Technical Reference (BLM
temporal rather than spatial changes. 1999a). Ecological site, location, plot
The third step consists of selecting number, examiner, recorder, date,
the appropriate frame sizes and the sample plan, frame size, interval (when
recommended sampling plans. The appropriate), sheet number, all species,
sample plan refers to the number of notes, etc. should be recorded. Plants
transects and number of frames per which are unknown should be marked
transect. Recommended sampling plans with a symbol for later identification.
and frame sizes for representative Careful observation of the quadrat will
Nevada range types are found in Table show the species rooted within. Only
K-1. These guides have been developed one hit per species is recorded regardless
2
of the number of individuals occurring A number of statistical analyses may
within the quadrat, i.e., presence or be used with frequency data. These may
absence. Depending on the allotment include simple t-tests, analysis of
and key area objectives, it may be useful variance, etc. To prepare frequency data
to collect size, age, or form class for the for these analyses, calculate the percent
key species (however, it considerably value for each nested frame size based
complicates and prolongs data upon the number of frames per belt
collection). The intensity or number of transect. If there are a number of values
species and types of data collected for above 80 or below 20 percent, then a
them should be determined during the transformation calculation on all the
planning process. percentage data for a plant species or
The percent frequency can be cover class can be applied to stabilize
computed very simply by dividing the the variance and approximate a normal
number of hits per species (quadrats distribution. Transforming the
containing the species) by the number of percentage data validates statistical
quadrats per transect. For nested procedure assumptions and increases the
frequency, the percentage is for each sensitivity of the statistical analysis for
given frame size. The sampling detecting change. If the results of all the
procedures preclude the need to place frequency or cover data fall between 30
the quadrats in the exact same location. and 70 percent, chances are a
transformation calculation is not
5. Statistical analysis of frequency trend required. This is because the data
data – To assure statistical reliability, it approximates a normal distribution
is recommended that 200 presence or within that range. An appropriate
absence frames constitute a minimum, if transformation equation may be of this
several species are of concern. The form:
Range Inventory Standardization Arcsin √ X = transformed value
Committee (1983) suggested that a Where X = percent frequency
precision of 20 percent of the mean at a 6. Special areas requiring trend
probability of 80 percent should be the determinations – The frequency
minimum acceptable level of statistical technique can be adapted for use on
reliability. It is likely that 100 frames small areas and in dense vegetation.
will do this for a few species on many When the area to be sampled is small,
ecological sites. The greater number of the sampling plan must be adapted to fit
transects, at least 20, will give more the area. This can be accomplished in
statistical strength. several ways. The length of the baseline
The question that is addressed -- Is can be reduced from 100 feet to 50 feet,
the frequency of occurrence of a plant or even 25 feet. The number of quadrats
species in year one significantly per transect can be reduced from 20 to
different from year five, etc.? It is a yes 10. A reduction in the number of
or no answer. The cause or reason for quadrats per transect may be offset by an
any differences must be determined, and increase in the number of transects to
thus interpreted, after careful analysis of produce an adequate sample size. In
all available information, i.e., utilization, practice, it may be possible to select two
actual use, climate, production, similar sites in close proximity and
resemblance to the desired plant sample half of the transects on each area.
community, ecological status, grazing In dense vegetation, the quadrat size
plan, etc. should be reduced to keep the percent
3
occurrence in the proper limits. 9. Summarize short-term monitoring
Experience has shown, for example, that information over the time span of the
a 10 X 10-inch quadrat with 5 X 5-inch, long-term trend data.
and 2.5 X 2.5-inch or smaller 10. Interpret the change or lack of change in
subdivisions is an appropriate size to use relation to possible or probable causes.
for the various species in a wet meadow 11. Determine whether management is
range site. In a few instances, however, leading toward objectives or if additional
the frequencies of Kentucky bluegrass, or alternative management is needed to
redtop, and sedge were greater than meet objectives
80%, even in 2.5 X 2.5-inch sample. 12. Determine whether trend monitoring and
The individual conducting the study will management objectives are still
have to make the decision on which appropriate for planned management.
quadrat size to use for each species
sampled. When the observer is
undecided, frequency can be determined
on two different sized quadrats for
several transects, then the proper size
selected. In situations with great plant
abundance or very sparse vegetation,
frequency may not be the best
measurement method.
Trend procedure summary:
1. Place the baseline in a representative
stand of an important ecological site.
Make provisions for its relocation.
2. Select the appropriate frame size (or
nested set of frames) and recommended
sample plan for the ecological site in
question.
3. Read and record quadrat data for each
randomly located transect.
4. Hits are recorded only when the species
is rooted within the quadrat.
5. Only one hit is recorded per species and
per quadrat regardless of the number of
individuals occurring within the frame.
6. Record frequency percentages by species
and place the values in a PDA or similar
device for rapid computation and
summary.
7. Photograph the landscape along the
baseline and one or more representative
or repeat photograph quadrats close to
the baseline.
8. Statistically analyze data for significant
species changes through time.
4
Table K-1: Appropriate frame sizes and sample plans (transect-quadrat allocations) for efficient
sampling of certain range plant communities in Nevada.
Frame Size* Transect/Quadrat
Plant Community Recommendation Allocation***
Artemisia tridentata / Stipa hymenoides 30” 20/20
(Big sagebrush /Indian ricegrass)
Artemisia tridentata (Seral) 16” 10/20
(Big sagebrush)
Artemisia nova / Poa secunda 20” (10”)** 20/10
(Black sagebrush / Sandberg bluegrass)
Artemisia arbuscula / Poa secunda / Elymus 10” 20/10
spicatus
(Low sagebrush / Sandberg bluegrass /
Bluebunch wheatgrass)
Krascheninnikovia lanata 3” 20/10
(Winterfat)
Sarcobatus baileyi / Stipa hymenoides 12” 20/10
(Bailey’s greasewood / Indian ricegrass)
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus 6” 20/10
(Green rabbitbrush)
Picrothamnus desertorum / Artriplex 10” 20/10
confertifolia
(Bud sagebrush / shadscale saltbush)
Artemisia arbuscula / Bromus tectorum 24” (3”) 20/10
(Low sagebrush / Cheatgrass)
Artemisia longiloba / Poa secunda / Festuca 24” or 30” (15”) 20/20
idahoensis
(Early or Alkali sagebrush / Sandberg
bluegrass / Idaho fescue)
Southern Great Basin and Mojave Desert 30” 10/20
communities
*The length of one side of a square quadrat
**Artemisia nova only
***The most efficient ratio of transects to quadrats
1
Surveying Pin
North end
Quadrats
Random number 3R Transect 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11
0
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0
Quadrats
Random Number 9L Transect 2
Random number 15R Transect 3
24R
27L
45L
51R
60R
63L
69R
84 L
Baseline 100
feet long
Theoretical boundary of sampling area
Surveying pin
Figure 1. Schematic outline of a frequency macroplot. (A sample plan with ten transects and
twenty quadrats (10/20), using 36-inch frame, would be approximately to scale.)
2
APPENDIX K – APPENDIX L –
PRODUCTION AND PLANT GROUND COVER AND CANOPY
COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES COVER MEASUREMENTS
Ecological sites (Appendix B) are Foliar cover is the area of ground
production-based. First compare existing covered by the vertical projection of the
species composition to the ecological site aerial parts of the plants. Canopy cover is
description for an indication of the degree of similar but does not separate out small voids
similarity and feasibility or achievability of or estimates a polygon around the outer
an objective for a key area. The procedure parts of the canopy. Ground cover is the
can vary depending on the issues and area or percent of ground surface occupied
management objectives for the area being by the basal portion of individual plants or
monitored. Required data can range from by bare ground, rock, litter, and soil biotic
directly estimating the species composition crusts (where identifiable). See glossary for
by weight to conducting a 10-30 plot weight precise definitions. Basal cover or ground
estimate transect. The dry weight rank, cover of live vegetation can quickly be
comparative yield, or weight-estimate- obtained, along with frequency information,
transect method for determining the species by observing cover at specific points along
composition of an ecological site would be the transect and/or quadrat frame.
employed in areas where the issues and Common methods used to measure
management objectives dictate the need for cover are line intercept (canopy or basal
production type data. The double weight cover) and point intercept (foliar or ground
sampling technique (BLM 1999a) is a cover). When using line intercept, at least
suitable technique if followed correctly. three, 100-ft. (or 50-meter) lines per site
Where a quantitative ecological should be used. Five transects usually
comparison to a reference plant community reduces the standard deviation. It is
or Desired Plant Community (DPC) is important to strictly follow the set of rules
warranted, the present species and their used among individuals from monitoring
percent composition by weight are period to monitoring period (Elzinga et al.,
compared to the reference plant community 1998). Foliar or canopy cover is often less
or DPC. useful for herbaceous plants (especially
When selecting and using a particular bunch grasses) than basal cover because the
technique, it is necessary to: aerial parts of the plants vary with season,
1. Document the method used so it can be year, and grazing use.
repeated at a later date. In some instances, species groups, e.g.,
2. Confine the weight estimate transects grasses, forbs, or shrubs, can be lumped.
within the boundaries of an ecological The applicability of grouping by life form
site and key area. depends on the objectives. Also, species
3. Document the transect location on an data can always be lumped for analysis, but
aerial photo, map, GPS, and/or by lumped data cannot later be split. For an
narrative. (See the Study Site Location additional discussion of cover monitoring
form in Appendix F.) see Sampling Vegetation Attributes (BLM
1999a).
1
APPENDIX M - MONITORING PLAN TABLES
The following two tables can either be copied and filled out as forms or used as a content
guide for writing a narrative monitoring plan. They are intended to address the major decisions
faced by rangeland managers as they determine what to monitor, where, when, and how, and
who will take responsibility for which tasks. The first form (Table 1) focuses on one objective
for the rangeland and it would be used as often as needed to address the many objectives in the
management plan. The second form (Table 2) focuses on an individual study site. It too would
be used as many times as needed to address all the study sites and all the short and/or long term
monitoring that will take place at each key area, critical area, photo point, or designated
monitoring area.
1
Table 1. Monitoring plan. (Copy table 1 and fill it out for each management objective.)
Monitoring plan for the __________________________ land or management unit Date_______
What is the issue being addressed __________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Management objective #____: (including the component or indicator, what will change in what
manner, by how much, where, by when) _____________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Brief description of the management to meet this objective (e.g., actual use, season of use, etc.)
and how is this management likely to accomplish this objective: (who) _________________ will
do: __________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
What is the expected relationship between management and the objective? _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
How this objective will be monitored each year to track the management that will be applied?
(who)_________________ will track: _______________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
(where)_______________________________________________________________________
(when) _______________________________________________________________________
How this objective will be monitored each year to track the effects of management?
(who)_________________ will observe and record (what): ______________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
(where)_______________________________________________________________________
(when) _______________________________________________________________________
How will weather and growing conditions be recorded?
(who) ________________ (will keep (get) records of) __________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
(where)_______________________________________________________________________
How will other events (fire, etc.) be recorded?
(who) _________________ will keep records of _____________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Over the long term, how will progress toward meeting this objective be measured?
(who) _________________ will measure ____________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
(where) ______________________________________________________________________
(by when or how often) __________________________________________________________
(Relevant Photo points)___________________________________________________________
2
Table 2. Monitoring Area Plan. (Copy table 2 for each study site (KA), critical area (CA),
photo point (PP), or designated monitoring area (DMA).) (Or use this form to guide for filling
out a narrative monitoring plan.)
Name of this study site, etc. ____________________________KA CA PP DMA (circle one)
GPS or narrative location ________________________________________________________
Date established ____________________ By whom __________________________________
What short-term triggers will be monitored here? _______How will it be monitored?
________________________________________________________
Target value __________________________________________________________________
When will it be monitored? _______________________________________________________
By whom? ____________________________________________________________________
What will it trigger? ____________________________________________________________
What end-point indicators will be monitored at this location?
How will it be measured? ________________________________________________________
Target value ______________________When will it be measured? _______________________
By whom? ____________________________________________________________________
How will these data and observations be used and interpreted? ___________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Who will use and interpret the data and observations? _________________________________
How often? ____________________________________________________________________
For objective #_____, what long-term monitoring will occur here?
What will change?______________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Will change in what manner? _____________________________________________________
By how much? _________________________________________________________________
By when? _____________________________________________________________________
What data or observations will be collected at this location? _____________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
By what method? _______________________________________________________________
Who will collect the data? ________________________________________________________
When and how often? ___________________________________________________________
How will these data and observations be analyzed? ____________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
(Who will analyze and interpret the data and observations?) _____________________________
When or how often?) (refer to form 1) ______________________________________________
3
APPENDIX N – in the pasture with the wide creek. For the
INTERPRETATION AND USE OF rest of the grazing period, the cattle would
MONITORING INFORMATION be moved to two pastures that had been
planned for rest, one in each of the years,
The following are two examples of using but could easily accommodate short periods
monitoring data: of summer use for the two years. This
Example one -- A Proper Functioning change would continue to address the
Condition assessment was performed on a objective by providing the riparian
creek-side riparian area and the vegetation with much of the growing season
interdisciplinary team concluded that the to regrow following grazing use and would
stream was too wide and that a wider produce adequate stubble to trap sediment
vegetated floodplain was needed to dissipate during the normal runoff season (lower
flood energy. The management team’s trigger or trigger replaced by an off date –
evaluation concluded that by allowing the same end-point indicator). By building
existing desirable herbaceous riparian plants flexibility into the grazing plan, alternative
to increase sediment trapping, the floodplain use areas and the flexibility to use them
would widen and stabilize the riparian area were available to make this modification.
with a narrower, deeper active channel. The During each of the two years with the
team decided to change livestock modified management the stubble height
management by placing mineral/protein target is met. At the end of this period the
supplement in the uplands at least a mile greenline-to-greenline measurement is
from the creek in lightly utilized areas and reread and found to have made a big jump
using low-stress herding to move cattle out toward the objective. At this point the team
of the riparian area five or more days each can decide to keep the modified
week. To monitor the effects of this management, which monitoring shows is
management and progress toward the meeting the objective; go back to the
objective, stubble height (with a trigger set original management, which also was
to achieve an appropriate end-point indicator making progress toward the objective of a
by fall) was selected for short-term narrower creek; or develop other
monitoring and greenline-to-greenline width management that would continue progress
was selected for long-term monitoring of toward meeting an appropriate objective.
stream width. It was agreed that, if in any They might now focus less on stubble height
two years in a row the actual stubble height and more on bank trampling (short-term
is/was less than 80 percent of the target, monitoring) and bank stability (long-term
management would be modified for the next monitoring). They might also agree to
year. measure multiple indicators using the
For several years, the stubble height method developed by Cowley and Burton
target was met and the first greenline-to- (2005).
greenline was slightly (not significantly)
narrower than the baseline reading. The
planned management continued. The next
year the fall stubble height was 70 percent of
the target. The team met, discussed why the
target wasn’t achieved, its significance, and
what to do. They decided that for the next
two years the supplementation and riding
would be dropped and the livestock season
of use would be changed to early spring use
1
Example two -- When a reduction or increase in AUMs for livestock or wild horses or burros is needed,
there are many ways to estimate the appropriate adjustments. The following formula could be a starting
place for making adjustments:
Existing Actual Use¹ x Desired Average Utilization³ = Calculated Capacity4
Weighted Average Utilization²
1
Existing actual use is the number of livestock and/or wild horses or burros actually grazing on an area expressed as
AUMs.
2
Weighted average utilization is the average utilization of the forage in the area (Weighted averages are based on the area
and the forage production of each key area or each place where forage utilization was measured).
3
The desired average utilization is the degree of utilization that will meet the short and long-term vegetative
objectives for the area.
4
Calculated capacity is the level of use, or number of animals expressed as AUMs, which could graze the area and
achieve the desired average utilization.
Example:
1,200 AUMs (1,200 cows or horses for one month) x .503 = 1500 AUMs
.40 (weighted average use)
The ultimate effect of a change in management will depend largely on animal behaviors related
to the use pattern. Usually a variety of things change from a change in management. Often,
change in stocking rate does not produce a linear effect on vegetation use in key areas.
Furthermore, it may not be the most effective tool for reaching some objectives. It would be
much more effective to change the season or duration of use and maintain or even increase
stocking rate. Therefore, this formula is only a starting point for considering a management
change. It is more useful in small or homogenous pastures and when other management remains
similar.
3
Fifty-percent utilization is an example, not a recommendation. Prescribed utilization will depend on type of
vegetation, season of use, duration of use, rotation of use, management objectives, other resource concerns, etc.
2
APPENDIX O - RANGELAND 1100 Valley Road
MANAGEMENT AGENCY Reno, Nevada 89512-2861
OFFICES IN NEVADA Telephone: (775) 688-1500
Nevada Agencies University Of Nevada Agricultural
Nevada Department of Agriculture Experiment Station
State Office College of Agriculture, Biotechnology,
350 Capitol Hill Avenue and Natural Resources
Reno, Nevada 89502-2923 Reno Office (775) 784-6237
Telephone: (775) 688-1180
University of Nevada Cooperative
Weed Districts or Cooperative Weed Extension
Management Groups – see Nev. Administrative office (775) 784-7070
Department of Agriculture
UNR - Animal Biotechnology
Nevada Department of Conservation and Univ. Of Nevada Cooperative
and Natural Resources Extension
Office of the Director State Livestock Specialists
123 West Nye Lane, Room 230 Fleischman Agriculture Building
Carson City, Nevada 89706-0818 9th and Evans St.
Telephone: (775) 687-4360 Reno, NV 89557
Beef (775) 784-1624 or
Nevada Division of Environmental Sheep (775) 784-6135
Protection
333 West Nye Lane UNR - Natural Resources and
Carson City, Nevada 89706-0866 Environmental Science
Telephone: (775) 687-4670 and Univ. Of Nevada Cooperative
Extension
Nevada Division of Forestry State Range Specialist
2525 South Carson Street Knudtsen Resources Center
Carson City, Nevada 89701-5502 1000 Valley Rd.
Telephone: (775) 684-2500 Reno, NV 89512
(775) 784-4057
Nevada Natural Heritage Program
1550 East College Parkway, Suite 145 Federal Agencies
Carson City, Nevada 89706-7921
Telephone: (775) 687-4245 U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
Nevada Division of Water Resources 920 Valley Rd.
123 West Nye Lane Reno, NV 89512
Carson City, Nevada 89706-0896 (775) 784-6057
Telephone: (775) 687-4380
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Nevada Indian Commission (NRCS)
5366 Snyder Avenue Nevada State Office
Carson City, Nevada 89701-6743 1365 Corporate Blvd
Telephone: (775) 687-8333 Reno, Nevada 89502
(775) 857-8500
Nevada Department of Wildlife
1
Forest Service - Humboldt-Toiyabe Nellis Air Force Base LMR
National Forest 702-652-7351
Supervisor’s Office
1200 Franklin Way Rangeland Management/monitoring
Sparks, NV 89431 Consultants: Society for Range
(775) 331-6444 Management
http://www.rangelands.org/srm.shtml
Forest Service - Rocky Mountain maintains a list of rangeland
Research Station consultants
920 Valley Rd
Reno, NV 89512
(775) 784-5329
U.S. Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management
State Office
1340 Financial Blvd.
Reno, NV 89502
(775) 861-6475
Bureau of Indian Affairs
311 E. Washington
Carson City, NV
(775) 887-3500
Fish and Wildlife Service
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office
1340 Financial Blvd.
Reno, NV 89502
(775) 861-6300
National Park Service - GBNP
100 Great Basin National Park
Baker, NV 89311
775-234-7331
Lake Mead National Recreation Area
601 Nevada Hwy.
Bouder City, NV 89005
(702) 293-8990
U.S. Department of Defense
U. S. Navy
Fallon Naval Air station
4755 Pasture Rd.
Fallon, NV 89496-5000
(775) 426-5161
U. S. Air Force
2
APPENDIX P – Composition – The proportions
GLOSSARY (percentages) of various plant species in
relation to the total on a given area. It
Actual Use – Documentation of may be expressed in terms of cover,
livestock use and management in a density, weight, etc. Syn. species
pasture through each year and through composition
the years. It contains dates; and numbers Cover – (1) The plant or plant parts,
of livestock put into each pasture, living or dead, on the surface of the
gathered, or moved; notes about partial ground. Vegetative cover or herbage
removals, and death losses. It may also cover is composed of living plants and
include information about grazing litter cover of dead parts of plants. (2)
problems involving water or livestock The area of ground covered by plants of
distribution, salting records, forage one or more species. cf. basal area.
conditions or other important matters. (Bedell 1998)
Adaptive management – The continual Cover - basal – The area or percent of
process of adjusting management based the ground surface occupied by the root
on a changing management situation as crown part of live vegetation.
well as on learning from our experiences Cover - canopy or crown – The
as tracked through monitoring and percentage of ground covered by a
research. It often involves management vertical projection of the outermost
for the purpose of learning to improve perimeter of the natural spread of foliage
future management. (See Appendix E.) of plants. Small openings within the
Anthesis – The period of opening of a canopy are included. It may exceed
flower, e.g., when anthers are visible on 100% (because the canopies of different
some grasses. species may overlap). (Bedell 1998)
Apparent trend – An interpretation of Cover - foliar – The percentage of
trend based on observation and ground covered by the vertical
professional judgment at a single point projection of the aerial part of plants.
in time (Bedell 1998). Small openings in the canopy and intra-
Assessment – The systematic collection specific overlap are excluded. Foliar
of resource and condition data so that cover is less than canopy cover and
managers can learn about resource either may exceed 100% (Bedell 1998)
potentials, important problems, and the Cover - ground – The percentage of
resource attributes in play for making material, other than bare ground,
changes to address issues (BLM H 4180- covering the land surface. It may
1). include live and standing dead
Colonizer – A plant adapted to begin vegetation, litter, cobble, gravel, stones,
growth on recently deposited sediments and bedrock. Ground cover plus bare
or on recently disturbed areas (Winward ground would total 100%. Syn. cover
2000). (Bedell 1998)
Community – A general term for an Critical areas – Areas that must
assemblage of plants and/or animals be treated with special consideration
living together and interacting among because of inherent site factors, size,
themselves in a specified location; no location, conditions, values, or
particular successional status is implied significant potential conflicts among
(Bedell 1998). uses (Bedell 1998). Critical areas
Community type – A group of species represent only smaller parts of a
that characteristically occur together and management unit that are more
become recognizable as a known entity. important to managers, such as riparian
A community type may represent any areas or specific places in riparian areas
stage in succession.
1
where there is a need to focus Ecological site – A distinctive kind of
management and monitoring. land with specific physical
Decreaser – For a given plant characteristics that differs from other
community, those species that decrease kinds of land in its ability to produce a
in amount as a result of a specific distinctive kind and amount of
abiotic/biotic influence or management vegetation (NRCS 1997).
practice (Bedell 1998). Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) – A
Density – Numbers of individuals or resource inventory that involves the use
stems per unit area. Density does not of soils information to map ecological
equate to any cover measurement sites and plant communities and the
(Bedell 1998). collection of natural resource and
Designated Monitoring Area (DMA) – vegetation attributes. The sampling data
The location in riparian areas and along from each of these soil-vegetation units,
the streambanks of a livestock grazing referred to as site write-up areas
management unit where monitoring (SWAs), become the baseline data for
takes place (Cowley and Burton 2005). natural resource management and
Desired Future Conditions (DFC) -- A planning (Habich 2001).
quantitative expression of the resource
attributes such as vegetation, soil, or End-point indicators – Guides to assess
water identified in management goals or resource use impacts at the end of the
objectives. It usually focuses on grazing and growing season, whichever
important and attainable differences comes last. They indicate whether
from current conditions in an area or on grazing use left resources in an
important resource attributes that could appropriate condition for moving toward
be lost or altered through management. objectives. Commonly, stubble height
DFC is similar to DPC but has a broader or utilization indicate the desired degree
perspective including other measurable of use. Syn. End of season indicators
resource attributes or features in addition Evaluation – The systematic process for
to the vegetation resource (e.g., channel determining the effectiveness of
width, width-depth ratio, etc.). management actions at making progress
Desired plant community (DPC) – Of toward meeting management objectives.
the several plant communities that may Flexibility – The ability to adjust a plan
occupy a site, the one that has been or on-the-ground management to adapt
identified through a management plan to to timely use of new information,
best meet the plan’s objectives for the unusual weather, or the spirit of
site. It must protect the site as a innovation. Flexibility is fostered by
minimum (Bedell 1998). It may be adaptive management, preplanning, and
described as dynamic, changing through relationship building which creates
time, or within a range of variability. confidence that managers will have the
Drought – (1) A period of abnormally responsibility to do what is right for the
dry weather sufficiently prolonged for resources.
the lack of water to cause serious Frequency – The proportion of quadrats
hydrologic imbalance in the affected that contain the species in question. To
area. (2) A prolonged chronic shortage make frequency comparable, the plot
of water, as compared to the norm, often size must remain constant in each
associated with high temperatures and measurement time period.
winds during spring, summer, and fall. Frequency of defoliation – (As used in
(3) A period without precipitation during GRI) The number of times forage plants
which the soil water content is reduced are defoliated during the grazing period.
to such an extent that plants suffer from It depends on plant growth rate and the
lack of water (Bedell 1998). length of time over which plants
2
experience grazing within a growing immigration and settlement in North
season. Other factors include amount of America
forage present at the beginning of Increaser – For a given plant
grazing, phenological stage of the plant, community, those species that increase
point in the growing season, ability of in amount as a result of a specific
the plant to regrow after grazing, abiotic/biotic influence or management
weather, etc. practice (Bedell 1998).
Georeferencing – The process of Inventory -- The systematic collection
connecting data to its precise geographic of quantitative data about a resource and
location. When two or more images or its condition Often inventory data are
maps are georeferenced, they are used as a baseline for future
effectively overlapped with the same comparisons.
scale and orientation. Key Area – A relatively small portion of
Goals – General statements of the a range selected because of its location,
desired direction of change or the use, or grazing value as a monitoring
desired condition of resources in the point for grazing use. It is assumed that
future (BLM TR4400-1). key areas, if properly selected, will
Grazing Intensity – (as used in the reflect the overall acceptability of
GRI) The amount of plant material current grazing management over the
removed during the grazing period. The range (Bedell 1998).
primary concern is the amount of Key species – (1) Forage species whose
photosynthetically active leaf material use serves as an indicator to the degree
remaining for the plant to recover from of use of associated species. (2) Those
grazing. This is not an estimate of species which must, because of their
percent utilization which also includes importance, be considered in the
utilization after plants are dormant management program (Bedell 1998).
and/or may be modified by growth. Syn. Leader – The growing or most recently
intensity. grown annual increment of the stem at
Greenline – The first perennial the top of, or end of the branches of, a
vegetation that forms a lineal grouping woody plant (tree or shrub).
of community types on or near the low Lentic – Referring to standing water, as
water’s edge. Most often occurs at or in ponds, marshes, and seeps have lentic
slightly below the bankfull stage riparian areas.
(Winward 2000). It is found only along Long-term monitoring - Measurement
streams with defined channels (Cowley of changes in resource attributes such as
and Burton (2005). plant composition of ground cover over
Herbaceous – Vegetation growth with time. It is used to periodically assess
little or no woody component; non- progress toward meeting long-term
woody vegetation such as graminoids resource management objectives.
and forbs. Lotic – Referring to running water, as in
Herbivore – An animal that subsists streams, rivers, and springs have lotic
principally or entirely on plants or plant riparian areas.
materials (Bedell 1998). Monitoring – The orderly collection,
Historic Climax Plant Community -- analysis, and interpretation of resource
(1) The natural plant community of an data to evaluate progress toward meeting
ecological site, in the absence of management objectives. This process
abnormal disturbances and physical site must be conducted over time in order to
deterioration. (2) Is that assemblage of determine whether or not management
plants presumed to be in place on an objectives are being met (Bedell 1998).
ecological site at the time of European Nested frequency – The same as
frequency except that a change in
3
species abundance is anticipated by as a natural ecosystem. If plants are
collecting data in nested quadrats of introduced, they are managed similarly.
different sizes during each time period; Rangeland includes natural grasslands,
occurrence in one plot equals occurrence savannas, shrublands; many deserts,
in all larger nested plots. This allows tundras, alpine communities, marshes
future comparisons by selecting the most and meadows (Bedell 1998).
appropriate quadrat size for analysis Rangeland Health – The degree to
(USFS Handbook 2209.21). which the integrity of the soil,
Opportunity for growth and/or vegetation, water, and air as well as the
regrowth – (as used in GRI) The ecological processes of the rangeland
amount of time plants have to grow prior ecosystem are balanced and sustained.
to grazing or regrow after grazing. This Integrity is defined as the maintenance
factor is related to time and duration of of the structure and function attributes
use. Syn., opportunity. characteristic of a locale, including
Pixel – Picture element or the smallest normal variability (Bedell 1998).
individual element of a digital picture or Remote sensing – Detecting information
image over which reflectance about the character of a resource from
characteristics are averaged. afar, such as through photography or
Phenology – The study of periodic other imagery, often obtained from
biological phenomena that are recurrent planes or satellites.
such as flowering, seeding, etc. Residual vegetation – The current
especially as related to climate (Bedell year’s above-ground plant material
1998). remaining after grazing. It may be
Point bar – The deposit of sediment on recorded as weight per unit area, stubble
the inside edge of a bend in a low- height, or as the opposite of utilization,
gradient stream or river. the percent remaining.
Proper use – A degree of utilization of Resilience – The amount of disturbance
current year’s growth which, if or stress a state can endure and still
continued, will achieve management regain its original function after the
objectives and maintain or improve the disturbance or stresses are removed.
long-term productivity of the site. Resistance – The capability of a state to
Proper use varies with time and systems absorb disturbance or stresses and to
of grazing. Syn., Proper utilization, retain ecological process functions.
proper grazing use, cf. allowable use Resistant plant communities tend to stay
(Bedell 1998). near equilibrium conditions with less
Quadrat – Sampling frame within variation in ecological processes.
which vegetation information is Resource objectives – Specific
gathered. attributes of natural resource conditions
Quantitative ecology – Comparison of a that management will strive to
species composition data set against a accomplish, the area or location where
reference standard for that ecological this will occur, and the time frame.
site. Each native or desired species Resource objectives must be site-
percentage is counted up to some specific, measurable, and attainable
maximum allowable limit, determined statements of the desired resource
by that species maximum contribution to attributes.
a historic climax plant community or a Resource Value Rating – A measure of
desired plant community. the value of vegetation present on an
Rangeland – Land on which indigenous ecological site for a particular use or
vegetation (climax or natural potential) benefit. Resource value ratings may be
is predominantly grasses, grass-like established for each plant community
plants, forbs, or shrubs and is managed capable of being produced on an
4
ecological site, including exotic or particularly adept at holding soil against
cultivated species (Bedell 1998). the forces of flowing water (Winward
Rhizomatous – a group of plants that 2000).
spread by rhizomes or underground State – A combination of vegetation and
stems. soil processes that perpetuate through
Riparian – A form of wetland transition time or cycle in response to
between permanently saturated wetland disturbances.
or aquatic and upland areas. Riparian State and transition model – A
areas can support vegetation that description of vegetation dynamics and
survives in or depends on moister or management interactions associated with
permanently saturated soils. each ecological site. The model provides
Riparian Proper Functioning a method to organize and communicate
Condition – Riparian-wetland areas are complex information about vegetation
functioning properly when adequate response to disturbances (fire, lack of
vegetation, landform, or large woody fire, drought, insects, disease, etc.) and
debris is present to; dissipate stream management (NRCS 2003).
energy associated with high flows, Streambank – The edge of a stream that
thereby reducing erosion and improving contains the flow of water except the
water quality; filter sediment, capture water that floods out of the channel in
bed load, and aid floodplain flood conditions that may occur less
development; improve flood water often that once in two to three years.
retention and groundwater recharge; The streambank should not be confused
develop root masses that stabilize with a gully bank or other high bank that
streambanks against cutting action; is only wetted during rare flood events,
develop diverse ponding and channel if ever.
characteristics to provide the habitat and Streambank alteration – The
the water depth, duration, and deformation (at least ½ inch) of shearing
temperature necessary for fish of a part of a streambank by the physical
production, waterfowl breeding, and impact of livestock, recreationists, or
other uses; and support greater wildlife during a season of use (Cowley
biodiversity. and Burton 2005).
Short-term monitoring – Addresses Streambank stability – A measure of
three topics, (1) Conformance with the the degree to which a streambank is
plan (2) Current, annual, or short-term covered by vegetation or anchored rock
impacts of the implemented management or logs versus the degree to which a
on resources of interest, and (3) Weather streambank is showing signs of active
and other unplanned events. This erosion or vulnerability to erosion or
information guides day-to-day and year- slumping/breakage (Cowley and Burton
to-year management by monitoring 2005).
within-season triggers and end-point Stream channel morphology – The
indicators. It also helps interpret long- shape of a stream includes attributes
term monitoring data. such as average width and depth, slope,
Shrub – A plant that has persistent meandering, width/depth ratio,
woody stems and a relatively low growth pool/riffle ratio, or other characteristics
habit, and that may produce several that may relate to energy dissipation,
basal shoots instead of a single bole. It erosion, sediment transport, deposition,
differs from a tree by its low stature, or fish habitats.
(generally less than 5 meters or 16 feet), Stubble Height – The measure or height
and non-arborescent form (Bedell 1998). (in centimeters or inches) of herbage left
Stabilizer – A plant that is noted for its ungrazed at any given time (BLM
deep and/or dense root systems and is 1999b).
5
Succession – the progressive Ungulate – A large herbivore with a
replacement of plant communities on a cloven hoof and a particular type of
site which leads to the potential natural digestive system. Cattle, sheep, deer,
plant community, i.e., attaining stability. antelope and elk are ungulates.
Primary succession entails simultaneous Use map – A map depicting zones of
succession of soil from parent material utilization by livestock or some other
and vegetation. Secondary succession herbivore within a pasture or other
occurs following disturbances on sites defined area. It is likely to show
that previously supported vegetation, patterns of heavier and lighter use that
and entails plant succession on a more can be used to help evaluate
mature soil. Cf. plant succession (Bedell management.
1998). Utilization –The proportion of the
Sustainable – Retaining a similar set of current year’s growth that has been
resource conditions and ecological removed by herbivores.
processes or retaining a resilient nature Utilization cage –A small moveable
so that changes are cyclic or dynamic, exclosure to prohibit grazing within its
rather than permanent, or ones that boundary. By moving the utilization
would require significant restoration. cage to new representative areas each
This concept applies to human year before the grazing period, it can be
communities and economies as well as used to estimate the growth that would
ecosystems and to the opportunity for have occurred without grazing and,
future generations to choose among therefore, the amount of utilization of
resource management options. plants in similar outside locations.
Threshold – A point of irreversible Water quality – The combination of
transition to a new state. After the biological, chemical, and physical
transition, significant management effort characteristics of water and aquatic
(e.g., seeding, herbicide control, fire environments. Some agencies and laws
control, etc.) is needed to restore the have specific definitions for water
ecological processes of the prior state. quality.
Tiller – The asexual development of a Woody – A term used in reference to
new plant from a meristematic region of trees, shrubs, or browse that
the parent plant (Bedell 1998). characteristically contains persistent
Transition – The trajectory of system ligneous material (Bedell 1998).
change between states that lead to the
establishment of a new state. The
transition may be reversible for a time
and may become irreversible after the
new state has been reached. A transition
involves the loss or significant change of
ecological processes such as soil capture
of water, reproduction of key species or
species groups, resilience after fire, etc.
Lost or changed processes do not
recover without intervention.
Trend – The direction of change in an
attribute as observed over time (Bedell
1998).
Trigger – Within-season guide for
livestock managers to make changes or
move livestock, ensuring that end-point
indicators are met.
6
APPENDIX Q – Riparian Vegetation Sampling
REFERENCES Methods: How Useful are These
Techniques for Broadscale, Long-
Adamcik, R. S., E. S. Bellantoni, D. C. term Monitoring? U.S. For. Serv.
DeLong Jr., D. B. Hamilton, M. K., Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-138.
Laubhan, R. L. Schroeder and J. H. 18 pp.
Shoemaker, 2004. Writing Refuge Cowley, E. and T. Burton. 2005.
Management Goals and Objectives: Monitoring Streambanks and
A Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Riparian Vegetation – Multiple
Service. 34 pp. Indicators. Tech. Bull. No. 2005-002
Bedell, T. E. (Chairman, Glossary U.S. Bur. Land Mgmt. – Idaho State
Update Task Group). 1998. Glossary Office, Boise 25+ pp. available at
of Terms Used in Range http://www.id.blm.gov/techbuls/05_
Management. Society for Range 02/index.htm.
Management, Denver, CO. 32pp. Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, J. W.
BLM. 1984. Rangeland Monitoring, Willoughby. 1998. Measuring &
Analysis, Interpretation, and Monitoring Plant Populations. U.S.
Evaluation technical reference, U.S. Bur. Land Mgmt. Tech. Ref. 1730-1
Bur. Land Mgmt. Technical 492 pp.
Reference TR 4400-7. Habich, E. F. 2001. Ecological site
BLM. 1999a. Sampling Vegetation inventory, Technical reference 1734-
Attributes. Interagency Technical 7. Bur. of Land Mgmt. Denver, CO.
Reference. U.S. Bur. Land Mgmt. BLM/ST/ST-01/003+1734. 112 pp.
Technical Reference 1734-4 163 pp. Hall, F. C. and L. Bryant. 1995.
available at Herbaceous Stubble Height as a
http://www.glti.nrcs.usda.gov/techni Warning of Impending Cattle
cal/publications/index.html. Grazing Damage to Riparian Areas.
BLM. 1999b. Utilization Studies and Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-362.
Residual Measurements. Interagency Portland, OR: U.S. For. Serv.,
Technical Reference. U.S. Bur. Land Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Mgmt. Technical Reference 1734-3 9 pp.
165 pp. available at Hall, F. C. 2001. Photo point monitoring
http://www.glti.nrcs.usda.gov/techni handbook: Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-
cal/publications/index.html. GTR-526. Portland, OR: U.S. For.
BLM. 2001a. Rangeland Health Serv., Pacific Northwest Research
Standards. U.S. Bur. Land Mgmt. Station. 81 pp.
Handbook, H-4180-1, http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr52
BLM. 2001b. DRAFT Modified GAWS 6/.
– Stream Surveys. U.S. Bur. Land Herrick, J. E., J. W. Van Zee, K. M.
Mgmt. Elko District. Manual Havstad, L. M. Burkett, and W. G.
Handbook 6720. Whitford. 2005a. Monitoring Manual
Clary, W. and W. Leininger. 2000. for Grassland, Shrubland and
Stubble Height as a Tool for Savanah Ecosystems – Volume I
Management of Riparian Areas. J. Quick Start. U.S. Agric. Res. Serv.
Range Manage. 53(6):562-573. Jornada Exp. Range, Las Cruces,
available at NM. 36 pp.
http://saintenis.library.arizona.edu:40
00/cgi-bin/JRMLogon.cgi. Herrick, J. E., J. W. Van Zee, K. M.
Coles-Ritchie, M., R. Henderson, E. Havstad, L. M. Burkett, and W. G.
Archer, C. Kennedy, and J. Whitford. 2005b. Monitoring
Kershner. 2004. Repeatability of Manual for Grassland, Shrubland
1
and Savanah Ecosystems – Volume Prichard, D., C. Bridges, R. Krapf, S.
II Design, supplementary methods Leonard, and W. Hagenbuck. 1994.
and interpretation. U.S. Agric. Res. Riparian area management—Process
Serv. Jornada Exp. Range, Las for Assessing Proper Functioning
Cruces, NM. 200 pp. Condition for Lentic Riparian
Nevada Range Studies Task Group. Wetland Areas. TR 1737-11. U.S.
1984. Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Bur. Land Mgmt. Service Center,
Handbook. Nevada Range Studies Denver, CO. 46 pp.
Task Group. 49 pp. Prichard, D., J. Anderson, C. Correll, J.
Karl, M. S. 2005. Assessing Big Fogg, K. Gebhardt, R. Krapf, S.
Sagebrush at Multiple Scales: An Leonard, B. Mitchell, and J. Statts.
Example from Southeast Oregon. 1998. Riparian Area Management:
BLM/ST/ST-05/001+4400 41 pp. A User Guide to Assessing Proper
Manning, M. and W. Padgett. 1995. Functioning Condition and the
Riparian Community Type Supporting Science for Lotic Areas.
Classification for Humboldt and TR1737-15, U.S. Bur. Land Mgmt.,
Toiyabe National Forests, Nevada National Applied Resource Sciences
and Eastern California. For. Serv. Center, Denver, CO. 126 pp.
Intermountain Region R4-Ecol-95- available at
01. 306 pp. http://www.or.blm.gov/nrst/Tech_Re
NRCS. 2003. National Range and ferences/tech_references.htm.
Pasture Handbook. Grazing Lands Prichard, D., F. Berg, W. Hagenbuck, R.
Technology Institute U.S. Nat. Res. Krapf, R. Leinard, S. Leonard, M.
Cons. Serv. Manning, C. Noble, and J. Statts.
http://www.glti.nrcs.usda.gov/techni 2003. Riparian Area Management:
cal/publications/nrph.html. A User Guide to Assessing Proper
NRCS. 1999 National Planning Functioning Condition and the
Procedures Handbook. Washington, Supporting Science for Lentic Areas.
DC: U.S. Nat. Res. Cons. Serv., 180- TR1737-16, U.S. Bur. Land Mgmt.,
600 NPPH. National Applied Resource Sciences
Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D. Pyke, and J. Center, Denver, CO. 109 pp.
Herrick. 2005. Interpreting available at
Indicators of Rangeland Health – http://www.or.blm.gov/nrst/Tech_Re
Version 4. Technical Reference ferences/tech_references.htm.
1734-6 U. S. Bur. Land Mgmt. Range Inventory Standardization
National Science and Technology Committee. 1983. Guidelines and
Center Denver, CO, BLM/WO/ST- Terminology for Range Inventory
00/001+1734/rev05. 122 pp. and Monitoring. Society for Range
Phillippi, D. and C. R. Cleary. 1993. Management. Denver, CO, 13 pp.
Coordinate Resource Management
Guidelines for All Who Participate.
Society for Range Management.
Wheatridge, CO.
Prichard, D., H. Barrett, J. Cagney, R.
Clark, J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, P.L.
Hansen, B. Mitchell, and D. Tippy.
1993. Riparian area management— Rasmussen, A., M. O’Neill, and L.
Process for Assessing Proper Schmidt. 2001 Monitoring
Functioning Condition. TR 1737-9. Rangelands: Interpreting What You
U.S. Bur. Land Mgmt. Service See. Utah State University,
Center, Denver, CO. 60 pp. Cooperative Extension Service,
2
Department of Rangeland Resources, 47. Ogden, UT: U.S. For. Serv.,
NR 503 Logan, UT available at Rocky Mountain Res, Sta. 49 pp.
http://extension.usu.edu/cooperative/ available at
publications/index.cfm?stype=1&sea http://www.or.blm.gov/nrst/Tech_Re
rch=rangeland&submit=Submit. ferences/tech_references.htm.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Wyman S., D. Bailey, M. Borman, S.
Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Cote, J. Eisner, W. Elmore, B.
Consultants, Fort Collins, CO 390 Leinard, S. Leonard, F. Reed, S.
PP. available through Swanson, L. Van Riper, T. Westfall,
http://www.wildlandhydrology.com/ R. Wiley, A. Winward. 2006.
html/publish.htm Riparian Area Management -
Smith, L., G. Ruyle, J. Maynard, W. Management Processes and
Meyer, D. Stewart, B. Coulloudon, Strategies for Grazing Riparian-
S. Williams, and J. Dyess. 2005. Wetland Areas. U. S. Bur. Land
Principles of Obtaining and Mgmt. Technical Reference TR
Interpreting Utilization Data on 1737-20 119 pp. available soon at
Southwest Rangelands. Univ. of http://www.or.blm.gov/nrst/Tech_Re
Arizona Cooperative Extension ferences/tech_references.htm.
AZ1375. 10 pp. Wyoming Range Service Team 2001.
Tueller, P.T., G. Lorain, K. Kipping, and Wyoming Rangeland Monitoring
C. Wilkie 1972. Methods for Guide – A Cooperative and
Measuring Vegetation Changes on Voluntary Approach to Monitoring
Nevada Rangelands. Nev. Agr. Exp. Rangelands. 69 pp.
Sta. Tech. Bull. 16. 55 pp.
University of Idaho Stubble Height
Review Team. 2004. University of
Idaho Stubble Height Study Report.
Univ. of Idaho Forest, Wildlife and
Range Experiment Station
Contribution No. 986 26 PP.
available by searching for stubble
height at
http://www2.webedit.uidaho.edu/def
ault.aspx?pid=19511.
USFS 1985. Fisheries Habitat Survey
Handbook. U.S. For. Serv.
Intermountain Region.(94)-FSH
2609-23, Ogden, UT.
Weixelman, D., D. Zamudio, and K.
Zamudio. 1996. Central Nevada
Riparian Field Guide. U.S. For. Serv.
Intermountain Region R4-ECOL-96-
01
Weixelman, D., D. Zamudio, and K.
Zamudio. 1999. Eastern Sierra
Nevada Riparian Field Guide. U.S.
For. Serv. Intermountain Region R4-
ECOL-99-01.
Winward, A. H. 2000. Monitoring the
vegetation resources in riparian
areas. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-
3
Evaluation
Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook and/or
Ranchers’ Monitoring Guide
We the authors of the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook and Ranchers’
Monitoring Guide invite your comments regarding these publications. We would like to
correct any deficiencies or mistakes and learn from your experiences in its
implementation. We welcome responses to any of these questions. Please reply by:
Fax (775-784-4583),
Phone (775-784-4057),
Email (sswanson@cabnr.unr.edu), or
Mail (Sherman Swanson, University of Nevada, Reno, 1000 Valley rd. Reno, NV 89512)
Are these publications clearly written and understandable?
If not, where is there confusion?
Is the information in these publications useful for your rangeland monitoring needs?
If not, how and where could they be improved?
Have you applied these publications to monitoring rangelands or rangeland management?
If so, How?
Has the monitoring information led to improvements in rangeland management?
If so, What?
Are you engaged in cooperative monitoring?
If so, with whom?
Related docs
Other docs by NASSdocs
tahc guide des imp sys ani tra mar cmt - March 2007 Report Draft Proposals and Comments Submitted to OIE March 2007
Views: 6 | Downloads: 0
Grant EQIP Application Evaluation Worksheet - North Dakota 2005 State EQIP Sign-up
Views: 6 | Downloads: 0
