90.5 – definitions · web view92.1 – provides more clear direction to...

2209.13_90 of 65

FOREST SERVICE HANDBOOKSOUTHWESTERN REGION (REGION 3)

ALBUQUERQUE, NM

FSH 2209.13 – GRAZING PERMIT ADMINISTRATION HANDBOOK

CHAPTER 90 – RANGELAND MANAGEMENT DECISIONMAKING

Supplement No.: 2209.13-2016-1

Effective Date: May 6, 2016

Duration: This supplement is effective until superseded or removed.

Approved: JIM UPCHURCH Deputy Regional Forester

Date Approved: 5/6/2016

Posting Instructions: Supplements are numbered consecutively by title and calendar year. Post by document; remove the entire document and replace it with this supplement. Retain this transmittal as the first page(s) of this document. The last supplement to this title was 2209.13-2015-1 to FSH 2209.13, chapter 10.

New Document(s): 2209.13_90 63 PagesSuperseded Document(s) (Amendment Number and Effective Date)

2209.13_90, R3-2209.13-2007-1, 9/8/2007 34 Pages

Digest:

Table of Contents – Adds a table of contents to aid in user navigation through the document.

90.5 – Adds 24 new definitions and makes modifications to other definitions.

92.1 – Provides more clear direction to interdisciplinary team for developing and documenting a plan-to-project analysis. Adds clarity and substitutes terminology that is more consistent with FSH 1909.15. Some of the text is removed and inserted in more appropriate sections of the supplement.

92.11 – Adds clarity and substitutes terminology that is more consistent with FSH 1909.15.

92.11a – Changes the title of the section and makes minor modifications for clarity.

R3 SUPPLEMENT 2209.13-2016-1EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/6/2016DURATION: This supplement is effective until superseded or removed

2209.13 of 65

FSH 2209.13 – GRAZING PERMIT ADMINISTRATION HANDBOOKCHAPTER 90 – RANGELAND MANAGEMENT DECISIONMAKING

92.12a – Changes the title of the section and makes minor modifications for clarity.



92.14a – Inserts a new section to provide direction for conducting an allotment-level capability and capacity analysis.

92.14b – Inserts a new section to provide direction for describing grazing intensity.


92.21 – Adds clarity and substitutes terminology that is more consistent with FSH 1909.15. Some of the text is removed and inserted in more appropriate sections of the supplement.


92.23 – Adds a new section describing the components of a complete proposed action statement and how it relates to the development or revision of an allotment management plan.

92.23b – Revised to provide greater clarity and a more succinct definition of adaptive management. The description of adaptive management relates more to allotment management planning than to land management planning as in the previous issuance.

92.23c – Changes the title of the section and makes minor modifications for clarity.

92.32 – Revised to focus effects analysis on effects of outcomes and less so on actions.

93.1 – Inserts a new section to incorporate and clarify regional direction previously provided under a Regional Forester Memo into the directives system.

93.2 – Provides a more complete citation to a document referenced in the previous supplement.

93.3 – Inserts a new section providing direction for Clean Water Act compliance related to National Best Management Practices that have been developed since the issuance of the previous supplement.

94 – Provides further direction on implementing action following the final agency action on a NEPA-based decision related to continued permittee involvement in the implementation phase.

94.2a – Inserts a new section providing direction on administrative reviews under 36 CFR 214 (post-decisional appeals) and 36 CFR 218 (pre-decisional objections).


2209.13 of 65


95 – Revised to provide greater clarity and consistency in use of terms with other sections of the chapter.

96 – Revised to provide clarity and substitutes terminology that is more consistent with FSH 1909.15.

Exhibit 01 – Consolidates Exhibits 1A, 1B and 1C from the previous issuance and makes clarifying revisions.

Exhibit 05 – Adds example text that is consistent with section 92.23 and to provide consistency with 36 CFR 212. Consolidates example text related to monitoring from Exhibit 6 of the previous issuance into the Proposed Action exhibit.

Exhibit 06 – Provides two Plan-to-Project Matrices examples.

Exhibit 08 – Adds a new exhibit to provide an example of Ecological Type Description from the Tonto NF.


2209.13 of 65


Table of Contents

90.5 – Definitions........................................................................................................................592 - PHASES OF RANGELAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING.....................................11

92.1 – Plan-to-Project Analysis.................................................................................................1192.11 – Identification of Desired Conditions............................................................................13

92.11a – Describe Desired Conditions..................................................................................1492.12 – Identification of Existing Condition.............................................................................15

92.12a – Describe Existing Condition...................................................................................1592.13 – Identification of Resource Management Needs............................................................1692.14 – Identification of Possible Practices...............................................................................17

92.14a – Estimating Capacity................................................................................................1892.14b – Describing Grazing Intensity..................................................................................20

92.15 – Identification of Information Needs.............................................................................2192.21 – Decision Framework.....................................................................................................2192.22 – Purpose and Need.........................................................................................................2192.23 – Proposed Action...........................................................................................................22

92.23a – Scope of Proposed Action.......................................................................................2492.23b – Adaptive Management............................................................................................2492.23c – Considerations in Developing an Adaptive Management Alternative....................27

92.31 – Alternatives...................................................................................................................2792.32 – Effects of Alternatives..................................................................................................28

93 - INTEGRATION OF OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS INTO RANGELAND MANAGEMENT DECISIONMAKING PROCESS...............................................29

93.1 – Endangered Species Act (ESA)......................................................................................2993.2 – National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)..................................................................3093.3 – Clean Water Act (CWA)................................................................................................31

94 – NEPA-BASED DECISIONS AND IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS WHICH FOLLOW............................................................................................................................ 31

94.1 – Allotment Management Plans (AMPs)...........................................................................3194.2 – Grazing Permits..............................................................................................................32

94.2a – Administrative Review of Decisions Affecting Grazing Authorizations.................3294.3 – Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs)...........................................................................34

95 – MONITORING........................................................................................................3496 – REVIEW OF EXISTING PROJECT-LEVEL NEPA-BASED DECISIONS.............3897 – REFERENCES.......................................................................................................3898 - EXHIBITS...............................................................................................................40


2209.13 of 65


90.5 – Definitions

Actual Use: A report of the actual livestock grazing use. Actual use may be expressed in terms of animal unit months or animal months. A record of actual use contains dates and numbers of livestock gathered or moved, notes about partial removals and death losses, and it may also include information about grazing problems involving water or livestock distribution, salting records, or forage conditions (Smith et al. 2012).

Adaptive Management: A system of management practices based on clearly identified intended outcomes and monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting those outcomes; and, if not, to facilitate management changes that will best ensure that those outcomes are met or re-evaluated. Adaptive management stems from the recognition that knowledge about natural resource systems is sometimes uncertain (36 CFR 220.3).

Animal-Month (AM): A month's tenure upon range by one animal. Must specify kind and class of animal. Not synonymous with animal-unit month. *

Animal Unit (AU): Considered to be one mature cow of about 1,000 pounds (450 kg), either dry or with calf up to 6 months age, or their equivalent, consuming about 26 pounds (12 kg) of forage/day on an oven-dry basis. *

Animal-Unit-Month (AUM): The amount of oven-dry forage (forage demand) required by one animal unit for a standardized period of 30 animal-unit-days. Not synonymous with animal month. The term AUM is commonly used in three ways: (a) stocking rate, as in "X acres per AUM"; (b) forage allocations, as in "X AUMs in Allotment A"; (c) utilization, as in "X AUMs taken from Unit B." *

Apparent Trend: An interpretation of trend based on observation and professional judgment at a single point in time.* An assessment, using professional judgment, based on a one-time observation. It includes consideration of such factors as plant vigor, abundance of seedlings and young plants, accumulation or lack of plant residues on the soil surface, and soil surface characteristics (i.e. crusting, gravel pavement, pedestalled plants, and sheet or rill erosion) (Interagency Technical Reference 1734-4).

Assessment: An analysis and interpretation of the ecological, economic, and/or social characteristics of an area using scientific principles to describe existing conditions as they affect sustainability. Assessments provide the foundation of independent information upon which to build conservation strategies and management decisions, and against which alternative approaches can be evaluated and modified (FSM 1940.5).

Benchmark: A permanent reference point, in range inventory and effectiveness (trend) monitoring, it is used as a point where changes in vegetation, in response to applied management through time, are measured (Adapted from “A Glossary of Terms Used in Range Management.”


2209.13 of 65


Fourth Edition, edited by the Glossary Update Task Group, Society for Range Management, Thomas E. Bedell, Chairman. 1998. Third Printing 2005).

Best Management Practices for Water Quality (BMPs): Methods, measures, or practices selected by an agency to meet its nonpoint source control needs. BMPs include but are not limited to structural and nonstructural controls and operation and maintenance procedures. BMPs can be applied before, during, and after pollution-producing activities to reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutants into receiving waters (36 CFR 219.19).

Capability: The ability of a unit of land, based on defined physical and biological attributes, to support a particular use or suite of products while maintaining ecosystem sustainability (FSM 1905).

Carrying Capacity: The average number of livestock and/or wildlife that may be sustained on a management unit compatible with management objectives for the unit. In addition to site characteristics, it is a function of management goals and management intensity. (Synonymous with grazing capacity.) *

Collaboration: People working together to share knowledge and resources to describe and achieve desired conditions for National Forest System (NFS) lands and for associated social, ecological, and economic systems in a plan area. Collaboration applies throughout land management, encompasses a wide range of external and internal relationships, and entails formal and informal processes (FSM 1940.5).

Critical Area: An area which must be treated with special consideration because of inherent site factors, size, location condition, values, or significant potential conflicts among uses. * A critical area is not a key area because it is not representative of the grazing use on a pasture or allotment.

Deferment: The delay of grazing to achieve a specific management objective. A strategy aimed at providing time for plant reproduction, establishment of new plants, restoration of plant vigor, a return to environmental conditions appropriate for grazing, or the accumulation of forage for later use. *

Deferred Grazing: The deferment of grazing in a non-systematic rotation with other land units. *

Deferred-Rotation: Any grazing system, which provides for a systematic rotation of the deferment among pastures. *

Desired Conditions: A description of specific social, economic, and/or ecological characteristics of the project area, or a portion of the project area, toward which management of the land and resources should be directed. Desired conditions must be described in terms that are specific enough to allow progress toward their achievement to be determined, but do not include completion dates (36 CFR 219.7). Desired conditions are aspirations and are not commitments


2209.13 of 65


or final decisions approving projects and activities, and may be achievable only over a long time period (FSM 1905).

Ecological Integrity: The quality or condition of an ecosystem when its dominant ecological characteristics (for example, structure, function, connectivity, and species composition and diversity) occur within the natural range of variation and can withstand and recover from most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human influence (36 CFR 219.19).

Ecological Site: A conceptual division of the landscape, defined as a distinctive kind of land based on recurring soil, landform, geological, and climate characteristics that differs from other kinds of land in its ability to produce distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation and in its ability to respond similarly to management actions and natural disturbances (USDA NRCS 2013).

Ecological Site Description (ESD): The documentation of the characteristics of an ecological site. The documentation includes the data used to define the distinctive properties and characteristics of the ecological site; the biotic and abiotic characteristics that differentiate the site (i.e., climate, physiographic, soil characteristics, plant communities); and the ecological dynamics of the site that describes how changes in disturbance processes and management can affect the site. An ESD also provides interpretations about the land uses and ecosystem services that a particular ecological site can support and management alternatives for achieving land management (USDA NRCS 2013).

Ecological Status: The degree of similarity between the existing vegetation (all components and their characteristics) and existing soil conditions compared to the potential natural community and the desired soil condition on a site (FSH 2090.11).

Ecological Type: A category of lands with a distinctive (i.e., mappable) combination of landscape elements. The elements making up an ecological type are climate, geology, geomorphology, soils, and potential natural vegetation. Ecological types differ from each other in their ability to produce vegetation and respond to management and natural disturbances (Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory Technical Guide: Landscape and Land Unit Scales, USDA Forest Service, Gen Tech Report WO-68, 2005).

Ecological Units: Map units designed to identify land and water areas at different levels of resolution based on similar capabilities and potentials for response to management and natural disturbance. These capabilities and potentials derive from multiple elements: climate, geomorphology, geology, soils and potential natural vegetation. Ecological units should, by design, be rather stable. They may, however, be refined or updated as better information becomes available (Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory Technical Guide: Landscape and Land Unit Scales, USDA Forest Service, Gen Tech Report WO-68, 2005).


2209.13 of 65


Frequency (as a management tool): The number of times forage plants are defoliated during the grazing period (Reed Floyd, Roy Roath, and Dave Bradford. 1999. The Grazing Response Index: A Simple and Effective Method to Evaluate Grazing Impacts. Rangelands 21(4): 3-6.).

Frequency (as a measurement for trend): The ratio between the number of sample units that contain a species and the total number of sample units.*

Grazing Capability: A qualitative expression of the inherent ability of an ecosystem to support grazing use by various kinds and classes of livestock while maintaining sustainability of the resource and providing for multiple uses and ecosystem services. Grazing capability of a land area is dependent upon the interrelationship of the soils, topography, vegetation, forage production, and animal behavior (R3 Range Analysis and Management Training Guide 2013 (RAMTG)).

Grazing Intensity: A description of the amount of leaf material removed during the grazing period. This is not an estimate of forage utilization. The primary concern is the amount of photosynthetically active material remaining for the plant to recover from defoliation (Reed, Floyd, Roy Roath, and Dave Bradford. 1999. The Grazing Response Index: A Simple and Effective Method to Evaluate Grazing Impacts. Rangelands 21(4): 3-6.).

Grazing Occurrence: The period of time during which a given area is grazed. How often a pasture is exposed to grazing or rested from grazing provides for different responses within the plant community due to differing opportunities for plant recovery.

Grazing Period: The length of time grazing livestock or wildlife occupy a specific land area.* The length of time a pasture is exposed to grazing affects many variables such as potential for regrowth of plant material, soil impacts and animal behavior. The grazing period influences the intensity of grazing and the frequency of grazing. It can also influence items tied to animal behavior such as trailing, and trampling such as between loafing and watering areas.

Head-Month: For grazing purposes, a head month (HM) is a month's use and occupancy of rangeland by one weaned or adult cow, bull, steer, heifer, horse, burro, or mule, or five sheep or five goats (FSM 2238.05). Head months are to be used only for grazing fee calculation, charging, and collection purposes.

Indicator: A quantitative or qualitative variable that can be measured or described to show trends in a corresponding ecological attribute when observed periodically. An indicator has also been defined as a measure or measurement of an aspect of a sustainability criterion. Indicators are quantifiable performance measures of outcomes or objectives for attaining criteria designed to assess progress toward desired conditions (FSM 1905).

Inventory: To survey an area or entity for determination of such data as contents, condition, or value, for specific purposes such as planning, evaluation, or management. An inventory activity may include an information needs assessment; planning and scheduling; data collection,


2209.13 of 65


classification, mapping, data entry, storage and maintenance; product development; evaluation; and reporting phases (FSM 1940.5). The level of inventory should be commensurate with identified issues being addressed.

Key Area: A relatively small portion of a range selected because of its location, use or grazing value as a monitoring point for grazing use. It is assumed that key areas, if properly selected, will reflect the overall acceptability of current grazing management over the range. *

Key Species: (1) Forage species whose use serves as an indicator to the degree of use of associated species. (2) The species which must, because of their importance, be considered in the management program.*

Monitoring: The collection and analysis of repeated observations or measurements over time to detect changes in conditions and values and evaluate progress toward meeting a resource or management objective. A monitoring activity may include an information needs assessment; planning and scheduling; data collection, classification, mapping, data entry, storage and maintenance; product development; evaluation; and reporting phases (FSM 1940.5).

Implementation monitoring - This short-term monitoring answers the question, was the management implemented as designed. Annually documents several items. Examples include: (a) were management actions implemented as designed; and (b) did the management actions achieve the annual effect expected? Items which may be documented through implementation monitoring include, but are not limited to: actual use (livestock numbers and days), condition of range improvements, utilization, wildlife observations.

Effectiveness monitoring - This long-term monitoring documents whether management actions are having the expected progress towards achieving resource management objectives.

Multiple Use: The management of all the various renewable surface resources of the NFS so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; that some land will be used for less than all of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output, consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528–531) (36 CFR 219.19).


2209.13 of 65


Objective: A concise, measurable, and time-specific statement of a desired rate of progress toward a desired condition or conditions. Objectives should be based on reasonably foreseeable budgets (36 CFR 219.7).

Protocol: Repeatable instructions for inventory, monitoring, and assessment activities for such tasks as assessing information needs, and collecting, mapping, classifying, analyzing and evaluating, and applying information (FSM 1940.5).

Resilience: The ability of an ecosystem and its component parts to absorb, or recover from the effects of disturbances through preservation, restoration, or improvement of its essential structures and functions and redundancy of ecological patterns across the landscape (FSH 1909.12).

Rest: To leave an area of grazing land ungrazed or unharvested for a specific time, such as a year, a growing season or a specified period required within a particular management practice. *

Rest-Rotation: A grazing management scheme in which rest periods for individual pastures, paddocks or grazing units, generally for the full growing season, are incorporated in a grazing rotation. *

Seasonal Utilization: The amount of utilization that has occurred before the end of the growing season (Interagency Technical Reference 1734-3, page 1).

Site Potential: The inherent productive quality of a site as determined by the soil, climate and topography. Site potential describes the inherent capacity of an area to produce vegetation resource values like forage, wildlife habitat and watershed characteristics.

Stock and Monitor: “The stock and monitor approach involves measuring the effects of actual stocking levels over time (either short-term or long-term) on utilization and utilization patterns, composition of vegetation, vigor, soil cover, and other factors (including wildlife) to see if changes in stocking and/or management are needed” (Smith et al, 2012). “The stock and monitor approach is recommended for establishing proper livestock stocking rates on grazing allotments. It is adaptive management i.e. continually reviewing and revising as necessary to meet changes in weather or other environmental factors as well as changes in management objectives. Utilization data can guide stocking when combined with other data or observations that indicate a change either up or down is probably needed” (Smith et al. 2012).

Stubble: The basal portion of herbaceous plants remaining after the top portion has been harvested by mowing or by grazing animals. *

Stubble Height: The height of forage plants remaining after grazing has occurred; average stubble height includes both grazed and ungrazed plants.


2209.13 of 65


Sustainability: The capability to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. For purposes of this chapter, “ecological sustainability” refers to the capability of ecosystems to maintain ecological integrity; “economic sustainability” refers to the capability of society to produce and consume or otherwise benefit from goods and services including contributions to jobs and market and nonmarket benefits; and “social sustainability” refers to the capability of society to support the network of relationships, traditions, culture, and activities that connect people to the land and to one another, and support vibrant communities (36 CFR 219.19).

Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey/Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit Inventory (TES/TEUI): The systematic examination, description, classification, mapping and interpretation of terrestrial ecosystems. A terrestrial ecosystem is an integrated representation of soil, climate and vegetation as modified by geology, geomorphology, landform and disturbance processes (Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory Technical Guide: Landscape and Land Unit Scales, USDA Forest Service, Gen Tech Report WO-68, 2005).

Timing: The time of season grazing occurs relative to the phenological stage of plant development, such as early growth period, reproductive period, or dormant period. Disturbance, such as that from grazing, may provide differing responses within the plant depending upon the stage of development.

Trend: The direction of change in an attribute as observed over time.*

Utilization: The proportion or degree of the current year’s forage production that is consumed or destroyed by animals (including insects). The term may refer either to a single plant species, a group of species, or to the vegetation community as a whole (Interagency Technical Reference (ITR) 1734-3, page 133).

* Definition from “A Glossary of Terms Used in Range Management.” Fourth Edition, edited by the Glossary Update Task Group, Society for Range Management, Thomas E. Bedell, Chairman. 1998. Third Printing 2005.

92 - PHASES OF RANGELAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING

92.1 – Plan-to-Project Analysis

The Plan-to-Project analysis occurs prior to initiation of the formal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance process. Documentation of the Plan-to-Project analysis is a critical part of the project record for NEPA compliance. If livestock grazing is currently authorized on an allotment subject to previous analysis, documentation, and a decision as required under NEPA, then review the documentation and decision to determine consistency with the existing Term Grazing Permit, allotment management plan (AMP), and annual operating instructions (AOI). Section 18 of FSH 1909.15 provides guidance for review of the original analysis, documentation, and decision to determine if the environmental analysis and


2209.13 of 65


documentation needs to be corrected, supplemented, or revised. Refer to section 96 for further guidance for conducting a review of existing project-level NEPA-based decisions.

For those allotments without appropriate analysis, documentation and an associated decision issued in compliance with NEPA, the following provides guidance for conducting analysis. Permittee involvement in this phase of the analysis is consistent with the requirements of Forest Service policy established in FSM 2203.1: “Coordinate, cooperate and consult with grazing permittees and grazing associations, and other interested parties in the development of allotment management plans.” AMPs are one of several administrative instruments used to implement NEPA-compliant decisions that authorize livestock grazing. This policy direction is also found in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA) of 1978 (43 U.S.C. §§1901 et seq.). Section 8 of PRIA directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to develop AMPs “in careful and considered consultation, cooperation, and coordination with” affected permittees, landowners, and States having land within the area covered. A permittee is also entitled to be specifically included as an applicant in the consultation process under §7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and regulations found at 50 CFR 402.14. The process is described in Section 93.1.

In the initial phase of project development, the analysis area is proposed by an interdisciplinary team and approved by the responsible official. Larger analysis areas often provide an improved ability to address cumulative effects and can expose a broader scope of potential management opportunities. When planning for permitted livestock management, consider analyzing multiple allotments within a watershed for efficiencies of scale. At this point of the analysis, it is not necessary to determine if one or more decision documents will be generated at the end of the formal NEPA compliance process; that can be determined following public scoping of the proposal. Larger scale analyses may allow for the interdisciplinary team to consider a broader range of management opportunities that may not be evident at the single-allotment scale. When opportunities are present for considering the status or management of vacant allotments, their potential allocation as forage reserves may be considered. A larger scale of analysis, such as a watershed does not negate the need for site specific information or detail.

It is through the Plan-to-Project analysis that the interdisciplinary team, in coordination with the permittee(s), determines desired conditions, existing conditions, and resource management objectives to address resource management needs. Possible management practices and information needs are also identified during the Plan-to-Project analysis. The Plan-to-Project matrix, text and forms (see Exhibit 1) provide tools which may assist in the initial formulation of desired conditions, assessment of existing conditions, planning management practices, and planning monitoring efforts. The matrix is provided as an optional tool, and when it is used, empty cells may help identify information needs. If information needs are identified, the responsible official must determine if gathering that information is necessary to make the decision or if the information can be accrued in conjunction with project implementation and adaptive management. The type of information needed as well as the necessity for obtaining that information should be well documented in the project record.


2209.13 of 65


When the matrix is utilized, it should be developed to reflect the complexity of the allotment(s) and display areas that are identified as resource management concerns by the interdisciplinary team. Site-specific concerns should be identified by location, for example through mapping and classification. In complex situations, a matrix may be required for each ecological site or TES/TEUI map unit, or for each key area in each pasture within the allotment. When relatively few resource management concerns are identified by the interdisciplinary team, a single matrix may be all that is needed to develop appropriate resource management objectives and possible management practices for a given allotment.

92.11 – Identification of Desired Conditions

Desired conditions identified in the land management plan can be further refined by analyses such as landscape assessments, watershed analyses or assessments, ecosystem assessments at the watershed scale, which facilitate the development of broad scale (allotment level) desired conditions. Desired conditions formulated at the project level are fairly broad, recognizing potential variation in the landscape, but should be determined and discussed in a site-specific, quantifiable and focused manner. Desired conditions should describe desired outcomes, not desired actions.

Establishing project-level resource objectives requires a thorough description of site-specific desired conditions for a range of environmental attributes. The interdisciplinary team should formulate desired condition descriptions considering each of the following: 1) sustainability; 2) resilience; 3) ecological integrity; 4) multiple use values; and 5) the ecological potential or capability of the land to produce vegetation resource values (site potential).

Authorizing various uses taking into consideration ecologic, economic and social factors is based on the potential features of the landscape supporting a given use. Maintaining ecologic integrity and resilience provides for ecologic sustainability. A consideration of multiple use during the plan-to-project phase should account for social and economic factors as well as ecologic. This is to recognize that sustainable landscapes cannot be maintained without full consideration of economic and social elements. However, adhering to the goals of multiple use may be constrained by economic, technological feasibility or legal constraints (e.g., the Endangered Species Act; 7 U.S.C. §§ 136 and 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531). Identifying specific desired conditions that best meet all considerations should tier to those found in the land management plan.

Interpreting site potential requires an understanding of land capability. Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory (TEUI) map units, associated data tables (USDA Forest Service 2005), and Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) can be used to delineate land units with similar site potential. TEUI is an inventory process that samples abiotic and biotic factors to develop classifications and interpretations of land capability for the biological and physical environment. Climate, soil, geology, geomorphic processes and vegetation form the basis of the classification system. Site factors are plants (vascular and nonvascular), landform, surficial geology, local climate, and morphometry (e.g., relief, elevation range, slope and aspect, gradient) which have


2209.13 of 65


direct effects on, and are better indicators of soil productivity and potential natural vegetation (PNV) at any given site. The determination of Ecological Sites also takes into account similar abiotic and biotic indicators.

92.11a – Describe Desired Conditions

Tiering from desired condition descriptions or goals contained in the land management plan, utilize the following considerations to develop allotment-specific statements of desired conditions.

1. Project-specific (site-specific) desired conditions should be developed through an interdisciplinary team process and coordination with collaborative stakeholders, including permittees.

2. The IDT should use the best available information, whether through existing monitoring or inventories, formalized assessments, professional observations, or anecdotal information. An explanation of the reliability, limitations, and precision of the data utilized and its applicability should be documented in the project record.

3. Desired conditions must describe environmental attributes, either quantitatively or qualitatively, in terms that are specific enough to allow for monitoring that will determine progress toward their achievement, but do not include timeframes (FSH 1909.12; USDA Forest Service 2015).

4. Desired conditions must be realistic and related to site potential of any given site. Site potential may be locally defined through existing Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory (TEUI) maps and associated narratives (Winthers et al. 2005; http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/rig/includes/TEUI_guide.pdf), ecological type descriptions, ecological site descriptions (ESDs), and plant association or habitat type guides.

5. Desired conditions should be specific enough to clearly apply to a particular geographic location.

6. Desired conditions should incorporate considerations of natural variation by describing a range of appropriate conditions in time and space rather than a single condition.

7. Desired conditions should be attainable in whole or in part, through the specific management activities being planned and evaluated.

Desired condition statements may also address other resource needs such as wildlife habitat. For example, a desired condition statement may describe upland grasslands as providing a mix of native species or a vegetation cover capable of protecting the soils from accelerated erosion, and providing a mosaic of vegetation structural condition to support native wildlife species. Common components included in desired condition statements are desired vegetation conditions (e.g., age-class diversity, ground cover) and disturbance regimes. In addition, desired conditions

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/rig/includes/TEUI_guide.pdf


2209.13 of 65


should be developed considering the human dimension in terms of potential impacts to various uses and activities (e.g., livestock grazing).

Refer to exhibit 01 for an example of a desired condition statement.

92.12 – Identification of Existing Condition

There are many sources available for identifying existing conditions within a project area. Examples include allotment files, corporate databases, historic surveys, and monitoring data from varied disciplines, such as Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species, Management Indicator Species, Species of Environmental Concern, or soil condition surveys. Determine existing conditions through inventory, sampling or documented observations.

92.12a – Describe Existing Condition

Establishing project-level resource objectives requires a thorough description of site-specific existing conditions for the same range of environmental attributes used to describe desired conditions under section 92.11a. Utilize the following considerations to develop allotment-specific statements of existing conditions

1. A site-specific evaluation of existing conditions should be conducted with an interdisciplinary team and in coordination with collaborative stakeholders, including permittees.

2. The interdisciplinary team should use the best available information and data, whether through formalized assessments, observations, or anecdotal information.

3. Existing conditions should be described specifically enough to clearly apply to a particular geographic location, such as a map unit within a pasture.

4. Existing condition analysis likely takes into account many influences within the project area, such as past and present disturbance from fire, roads, and wildlife as well as past and present livestock management.

5. Describe the existing condition of resources where a desired condition has been described.

An explanation of reliability, limitations, precision of the data, and applicability of the information utilized and should be documented in the project record. Where livestock grazing and other activities to be analyzed are expected to have little or no influence on the existing condition, document the rationale, including historical impacts, for that determination in the project record.


2209.13 of 65


Refer to exhibit 01 for example of existing condition statement.

92.13 – Identification of Resource Management Needs

If desired conditions and existing conditions differ, there are resource management needs. Resource management needs define the purpose and need for the proposed action. Resource management needs may also arise from ecological services and social desires. Resource management needs should be described sufficiently to pinpoint particular concerns. These concerns then drive the development of resource management objectives.

The objectives for a project plan are the means of measuring progress toward achieving or maintaining desired conditions (FSM 1905). A good objective is "SMART": (a) Specific in what it will accomplish; (b) Measurable in what it will produce; (c) Achievable with available management means and proficiencies; (d) Realistic within the given time frame and budget; and (e) Time-fixed by a stated endpoint (Leslie, M. G.K. Meffe, J.L. Hardesty, and D.L. Adams. 1996. Conserving Biodiversity on Military Lands: A Handbook for Natural Resources Managers. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.). Objectives are described in terms of indicators that are the means of measuring progress toward achieving or maintaining desired conditions. Objectives should be expressed in terms of outcomes, (e.g. decrease the presence of juniper on a particular meadow). A management practice or project is not an objective, (e.g. a prescribed burn to reduce the presence of juniper).

If desired conditions and existing conditions are the same, there is no need for change. This would also be the case if the existing condition is trending toward desired condition in an acceptable timeframe. A resource management objective, in that case, would reflect maintaining existing condition or the current trend toward desired condition. In this situation, continuation of current management may be appropriate. Whether the resource management objective is to change or maintain an existing condition, the indicators which depict the condition should be described in measurable terms.

Measurements are used to assess current conditions of rangeland ecosystems and monitored over time to assess if management actions are effective in moving the existing condition towards the desired condition in an acceptable timeframe. The indicators and timeframes are established by the responsible official in consultation with the interdisciplinary team and stakeholders (including permittees), based on best available information and professional knowledge.

Determining and documenting why a resource management objective is necessary or desired may assist the responsible official in making the decision. This may also be included in the Plan-to-Project Matrix (Exhibit 1), which provides guidance for determining resource management objectives.

Objectives are often expressed in terms of minimum and maximum acceptable values in order to state both low and high ends of the acceptable outcomes. This is the case when both minimum


2209.13 of 65


and maximum values are important to achieving desired conditions. Objectives may also be expressed in terms of single values such as the minimum desired herbaceous cover for a site or the maximum pinyon-juniper cover desired on a site. In all cases, the parameters described and the ranges or values specified must be attainable with a reasonable probability (i.e., there is available science, including professional experience, which indicates a reasonable probability that the site is capable of attaining the objectives in an acceptable timeframe). Reasonable probability does not preclude the potential for extenuating circumstances such as extreme drought, fire, invasive plants, or other disturbance that may prevent or slow attainment of management objectives. Therefore, attainment of the objective or lack of attainment must still be interpreted in the context of extreme disturbance events or other extenuating circumstances. Objectives and management practices, however, should facilitate movement toward desired conditions and help reverse movement away from desired conditions.

In a rangeland grazing management context, objectives should be site-specific. Objectives should be translated into ecosystem indicators that can be monitored for the purpose of evaluating trend toward meeting desired conditions over time, and relating the measured trend to the applied management practices and the response of the site to those practices. Particular sites within the broader ecosystem of the project area may be especially important to multiple-use goals and social considerations at the landscape scale.

92.14 – Identification of Possible Practices

Once the resource management objectives are developed, determine the management practices or actions which may be implemented to achieve resource management objectives. Management practices state how the differences between desired conditions and existing conditions will be addressed. Management practices may simply be grazing practices or may include other actions to be employed, such as vegetation treatments, erosion control measures, structural improvements, and others. The combination of practices may, at least in the short term, complicate the analysis and management. For example a vegetation treatment may require resting a pasture before and/or after the treatment. Long term changes may also be necessary, for example creation of a riparian pasture may require additional water source development, fencing and/or a different grazing strategy in remaining pastures. It is important to document the need for the combination of the practices, the anticipated results as well as the effects of the combination of practices. It is also important to document what management practices are being applied to address which objectives. Management practices provide for a variety of acceptable tools and actions to be utilized to achieve the objectives and desired conditions. The description of management practices should provide design criteria including guidelines, standards, and references to other sources of information. Design criteria provide the sideboards within which strategies may operate (USDA Forest Service 2008).

Management practices for livestock grazing may include variations on the following:


2209.13 of 65


1. varying seasons of use, (i.e. year-long, and seasonal use and on/off dates) which ensure vegetation growth conducive to withstanding grazing pressure and soils dry enough to withstand damage;

2. allow for mixed kinds and classes of livestock to achieve economic and ecological objectives;

3. various grazing systems;4. control timing of use and grazing period, by employing herders to provide for riparian

area recovery or to influence species composition;5. control timing of grazing to allow for recreational needs such as hunting season; and6. position salt to increase livestock grazing in select areas, in order to remove

vegetation, decreasing litter build-up to provide open areas for increasing forb component of the community.

Possible management practices should address any and all actions that will or are likely to be applied through an adaptive management strategy as described in section 92.23b. Documentation of all likely actions that could be implemented in an adaptive management strategy provides the responsible official the ability to facilitate changes in management that are needed to meet resource management objectives and/or improve resource conditions.

Refer to exhibit 02 for guidance in stating management actions to be employed.

92.14a – Estimating Capacity

An estimate of carrying capacity is critical within an adaptive management framework. Analyses were conducted and determinations made of grazing capability and suitability during land management plan development for all current plans created or revised under the 1982 rule. These plan-level determinations should be considered guidance when evaluating capability and estimating capacity at the allotment level, not a decision or allocation of resources made by the land management plan. There is no requirement for such determinations in land management plans revised under the 2012 rule. This section provides direction for conducting an allotment-level capability and capacity analysis therefore suitability should not be readdressed at the project level.

Carrying capacity is an estimate of the average number of livestock which can be sustained on a management unit compatible with achieving objectives for the unit (SRM 1999). Carrying capacity is a function of capability, forage production, proper use by livestock, and the level of management that is applied. Management objectives beyond those established for livestock grazing for a particular landscape must be considered when estimating grazing capacity. It must be recognized that carrying capacity is highly dependent on many factors that vary seasonally, annually, or over decades. Thus, estimates of carrying capacity are general approximations that must be tempered with other information, experience and judgment (Smith et al. 2007). Therefore carrying capacity estimates consider the kind and amount of vegetation (i.e., productivity), topography, infrastructure and multiple use goals.


2209.13 of 65


Due to precipitation variability and fluctuations in annual forage production, a range of livestock numbers or Animal-Unit-Months (AUMs) or a maximum level of livestock numbers or AUMs is described, analyzed, authorized, and permitted rather than an average number of livestock or average number of AUMs. An Animal-Unit-Month (AUM) is the amount of oven-dry forage (forage demand) required by one animal unit for a standardized period of 30 animal-unit days. The term AUM is commonly used in three ways: (a) stocking rate, as in “acres per AUM”; (b) forage allocations, as in “X AUMs in Allotment A”; and/or (c) utilization, as in “X AUMs taken from Unit B” (SRM 1999).

Capacity can be estimated during the Plan-to-Project analysis and adjusted adaptively with a stock and monitor approach. “The stock and monitor approach involves measuring the effects of actual stocking levels over time (either short-term or long-term) on utilization and utilization patterns, composition of vegetation, vigor, soil cover, and other factors (including wildlife) to see if changes in stocking and/or management are needed.…The stock and monitor approach is recommended for establishing proper livestock stocking rates on grazing allotments. It is adaptive management i.e. continually reviewing and revising as necessary to meet changes in weather or other environmental factors as well as changes in management objectives. Utilization data can guide stocking when combined with other data or observations that indicate a change either up or down is probably needed.” (Smith et al. 2012).

Where actual stocking records or trend data is lacking, other approaches can be used to estimate an initial carrying capacity. Forage inventory and various models can be helpful. Average forage production is assessed along with landscape features such as slope and distance to water to estimate the amount of usable forage available to a particular kind and class of livestock. This commonly involves reduction in carrying capacity for those areas of steeper slope and farther distances to water (Holechek. 1988). This provides an initial idea of carrying capacity and should be closely monitored. As Stoddart et al. (1975) described, “[t]rue grazing capacity can be determined only by stocking with an estimated number of animals and watching the range trend.”

Production-Utilization Surveys (PUs) address both forage inventory and actual ungulate utilization on a specific allotment. The value lies in gaining the knowledge of the forage crop being produced and how it is actually being used. Although production data is gathered, the utilization documentation is primarily used to address grazing capacity. PUs provide a comprehensive analysis of the grazing situation, including a detailed range inspection, a forage inventory, and an estimated grazing capacity, within a graphic illustration of the allotment. Carrying capacity estimates are derived from a comparison of actual use to assigned allowable use.

In lieu of PUs, monitoring can be helpful when estimating capacity. Implementation monitoring includes actual use, observation of utilization compared with established guidelines and utilization patterns. Compliance with annual operating instructions such as livestock movements and maintenance of range improvements are also important. Implementation monitoring data


2209.13 of 65


can help with understanding possible relationships between management and ecosystem response which is addressed with effectiveness monitoring. Monitoring informs any associated adjustments in management (i.e. adaptive management) including refinement of estimated grazing capacity.

Further information for assessing capability and estimating capacity can be found in the Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide.

92.14b – Describing Grazing Intensity

Grazing intensity may be described in terms herbage removed during the grazing and/or growing period, or as a utilization level at the end of the growing period. It is important to clearly define how intensity is being viewed and described. Removal of leaf material, when the plant is actively growing can affect root growth which in turn affects future leaf growth. Sufficient leaf area is essential to support plant functions through photosynthesis. Heavy to severe intensity or utilization can affect current plant development and growth, as well as growth during subsequent growing seasons.

Grazing Intensity is discussed by Holechek and others (Holechek, Jerry L., Rex D. Pieper, and Carlton H. Herbel. 2004. Range Management, Principles & Practices. Prentice Hall, page 248):

Light - Only choice plants are used. There is no use of poor forage plants. The range appears practically undisturbed.

Moderate - About ½ of the good and fair forage value plants are used. There is little evidence of livestock trailing and most of the accessible range shows some use.

Heavy - Range has a clipped or mowed appearance. Over half of the fair and poor value forage plants are used. All accessible parts of the range show use and key areas are closely cropped. They may appear stripped if grazing is very severe and there is evidence of livestock trailing to forage.

The above descriptions may be especially helpful when reviewing grazing during the growing season.

Grazing Intensity as depicted as a utilization level at the end of the growing season as discussed by Holechek and Galt (Holechek, Jerry L. and Dee Galt. 2000. Grazing Intensity Guidelines. Rangelands 22(3): 11-14):

Light to non-use 0-30 percentConservative 31-40 percentModerate 41-50 percentHeavy 51-60 percentSevere 61+ percent


2209.13 of 65


Additional qualitative assessments of grazing intensity include the Landscape Appearance Method (LAM) (Interagency Technical Reference 1734-3 Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements. pp. 119-125), and the Grazing Response Index (GRI) (Reed, Floyd, Roy Roath, and Dave Bradford. 1999. The Grazing Response Index: A Simple and Effective Method to Evaluate Grazing Impacts. Rangelands 21(4): 3-6.). The LAM is a rapid, point-in-time assessment that can help inform the need for within-season adjustments, whereas, the GRI is a rapid end-of-season assessment that is specifically designed to help inform planning for the next grazing season.

92.15 – Identification of Information Needs

Once desired conditions, existing conditions, resource management needs and objectives have been determined, any additional information needs should be assessed. The responsible official will need to assess what additional information is required for efficient decision making. Knowledge of data needed, priority for collection, process for data collection and time and cost associated with collection should be provided to the responsible official by the interdisciplinary team.

Information needs should be identified well in advance of project initiation. When basic information needed to adequately describe existing conditions is lacking, or when site-specific resource concerns are identified by the interdisciplinary team that may lead the development of remedial or restorative management practices, two to three years may be required to collect sufficient data for the responsible official to make an informed decision.

92.21 – Decision Framework

In addition to the two-part decision to be made as identified in the parent text, consider other relevant factors that may influence the scope of the decision to be made. These include, but are not limited to issues and opportunities within the landscape that can be addressed by the project being proposed, availability of data and information, and resources available for the analysis.

Refer to exhibit 03 for guidance in writing the decision framework.

92.22 – Purpose and Need

The purpose and need for the proposed action are derived from the resource management needs identified by the interdisciplinary team, which can be addressed through livestock grazing practices. As stated in the parent text, neither the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500 et seq.), nor the courts have made a distinction between the terms “purpose” and “need.” Therefore, “purpose and need” is referred to as a single item. However, in general, the purpose is to authorize livestock grazing in a manner consistent with LMP direction. The need is either to maintain current conditions or to provide for changes in conditions in order to move toward desired conditions.


2209.13 of 65


Refer to exhibit 04 for guidance in writing the purpose and need statement.

92.23 – Proposed Action

The NEPA compliance process is initiated through the development and scoping of the proposed action. The thoroughness of the plan-to-project analysis (sec. 92.1) can have a substantial influence on the ease with which NEPA-compliant environmental documents are prepared. A thorough plan-to-project analysis provides a solid foundation upon which all management actions are based. Potential issues that are not adequately identified and considered during the plan-to-project analysis will often be exposed during the public involvement phases of NEPA compliance. This can result in the need for additional information, analysis and elongated timeframes between scoping of the proposed action and the issuance of a decision. Therefore, prior to initiating public scoping, the Responsible Official should ensure that the interdisciplinary team has adequately documented the rationale for all management actions included in the proposed action, and that the proposed action meets the purpose and need.

Possible practices or management actions identified in the plan-to-project analysis form the basis of the proposed action. In some cases, current management may be adequately addressing some resource objectives, but a need for change is identified to address other resource concerns. In other cases, a more extensive change in management may be required to address multiple resource concerns. In either case, the proposed action should include at least the basic elements of an allotment management plan (AMP, sec. 94.1) developed to achieve identified resource management objectives. This should include an adaptive management strategy (sec. 92.23b) as part of the proposed action providing flexibility that will allow the Responsible Official to respond to unpredictable ecosystem drivers and stressors, such as drought, flooding and fire events. In addition, adaptations may also provide for minor modifications that are needed due to changed conditions or new information, such as canopy openings resulting from vegetation treatments, or a new listing or designation under the Endangered Species Act.

The following four basic elements are required for a proposed action authorizing livestock grazing to be implemented through the development or modification of an AMP.

1. Authorization – include the following:a. name(s) of the allotment(s);b. numbers or animal unit months (expressed as a range or maximum), kind(s)

and class(es) of livestock to be authorized to graze on the allotment(s);c. period of authorized livestock use on the allotment(s), such as year-long or

seasonal with flexible on-and-off dates;d. a description of authorized motorized vehicle use needed to effectively

manage the livestock operation that may occur off of designated routes identified on the applicable Motorized Vehicle Use Map (refer to the most current Region 3 Guide to Travel Management Rule Implementation); and


2209.13 of 65


e. any special authorizations or prohibitions on the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands for the purposes of managing the livestock operation.

2. Management – describe the following:a. objectives for resource condition and trend for the rangeland resources

specific to the resources present on the allotment(s);b. general management practices that will be implemented to achieve

management objectives on the allotment(s) including: grazing systems; guidelines for allowable use levels for each type of forage base (e.g. grasslands, browse, or riparian) occurring on the allotment(s); general guidelines for the use of salt, mineral and protein supplements; and other animal husbandry practices that may be implemented;

c. an adaptive management strategy that is responsive to the resource conditions before, during and after the grazing period and that will ensure desired outcomes are achieved to meet both short-term and long-term resource management objectives (sec. 92.23b and c); and

d. any site-specific resource protection measures or project design features that will be implemented to prevent degradation of grazing-sensitive resources, such as inherently erodible or degraded soils, sensitive archeological sites, and unique or rare habitat types that require special management considerations.

3. Improvements – describe and provide the location of the following:a. existing structural improvements and maintenance (or reconstruction)

activities that will likely be needed to keep them in functioning condition;b. obsolete structural improvements and any activities that may be required for

decommissioning or removal;c. proposed new structural improvements and any activities that will be required

for their construction and future maintenance;d. any mitigations or project design features needed to reduce impacts to

sensitive resources during the construction, maintenance or removal activities; and

e. activities required for maintenance of existing non-structural improvements or to implement new non-structural improvements.

4. Monitoring – describe implementation and effectiveness monitoring (sec. 95) in terms of:

a. the purpose for monitoring;b. attributes or indicators to be monitored (including those for which maintaining

current condition is the objective);c. likely method(s) selected to monitor those attributes;d. the likely frequency with which monitoring will be conducted; and e. a general description of where monitoring will take place.


2209.13 of 65


The basic elements of the proposed action need not be described or presented in any particular order or even under the four major headings outlined above. For example, when specific resources (e.g. the presence of particularly sensitive archeological sites or designated critical habitat) require extensive resource protection measures, a separate section describing in detail the protective actions that will be implemented may give the reviewing public a better understanding of how the proposed livestock grazing is expected to co-exist with the specific resource of concern.

Since both implementation and effectiveness monitoring are essential components of adaptive management, integrating the descriptions of these two elements of the proposed action may aid in both internal and public understanding of how the feedback mechanisms will inform management decisions and adjustments. Regardless of how these two elements are presented, a clear description of the anticipated kinds of monitoring information that will be gathered, the timing of such monitoring, and how it will be used to guide and adapt management changes should always be included in the proposed action.

Refer to exhibit 05 for guidance in writing the proposed action.

92.23a – Scope of Proposed Action

Proposed actions that are narrow in scope and focus exclusively on authorization of livestock grazing must include livestock management practices necessary for an adequate environmental affects analysis and management of rangeland resources.

92.23b – Adaptive Management

Adaptive management is a system of management practices based on clearly identified intended outcomes and monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting desired outcomes, and if not, to facilitate management changes that will best ensure that outcomes are met or reevaluated. Adaptive management stems from the recognition that knowledge about natural resource systems is sometimes uncertain (36 CFR 220.3). Adaptive management is the general framework encompassing the three phases of planning: assessment, plan development, and monitoring (36 CFR 219.5). This framework supports decision-making that meets management objectives while simultaneously accruing information to improve future management by adjusting the plan or plan implementation. Adaptive management is a structured, cyclical process for planning and decision-making in the face of uncertainty and changing conditions with feedback from monitoring, which includes using the planning process to actively test assumptions, track relevant conditions over time, and measure management effectiveness (FSH 1901.12 (05)).

The three phases of planning (assessment, planning, and monitoring) are a framework for adaptive management that will facilitate learning and continuous improvement in plans and agency decision-making. The intent of adaptive management in allotment management planning


2209.13 of 65


is to structure the Plan-to-Project analysis, allotment management plan components, and monitoring program in a way that will provide feedback to inform decision-making throughout the implementation phase (adapted from FSH 1909.12(06.2)).

Features of adaptive management include:

1. explicitly characterizing uncertainty and assumptions;2. testing assumptions and collecting data using data collection protocols at appropriate

temporal and spatial scales;3. analyzing new information obtained through monitoring and project experience;4. learning from feedback from monitoring results and new information;5. adapting assumptions and strategies to design better plans and management direction;6. adjusting actions and making decisions on the basis of what has been learned; and7. creating an open and transparent process that shares learning internally and with the

public (FSH 1909.12(06.1)).

Figure 1. Adaptive Management Process

The effects of climate change on natural resource management are best considered during the plan-to-project analysis. Climate change considerations are integrated with the development of objectives. Management proposals and associated design criteria may enhance the resilience or adaptive capacity of resources to the potential impacts of climate change. For example, projects designed to restore the health, resilience, and productivity of ecosystems may also improve the capability of the landscape to withstand climate change stresses. It is also important to consider whether climate change may affect the ability to reach a desired condition. Adaptive management strategies allow for uncertainties in environmental conditions resulting from climate change (USDA Forest Service 2009).


2209.13 of 65


When monitoring indicates the need for implementation of adaptive management adjustments disclosed in the project-level decision, those adjustments can be implemented without further analysis and disclosure under NEPA. Monitoring should answer the question: “Is acceptable progress being made toward attainment of resource management objectives and thus toward desired conditions?” If the answer to this question is “yes,” then current management may continue. If the answer to this question is “no,” then various adaptive management adjustments may be initiated. The Responsible Official must ensure that actions the Agency proposes to do under adaptive management are analyzed and their effects disclosed to the public in accordance with NEPA. The constraints referenced in the parent text (92.23b) are the sideboards of all management practices to be analyzed. In practice, the constraints consist of the range of variability of management actions. This allows for adjustment over time. These are identified in the proposed action, which includes the collection of possible management actions (see Figure 2). The constraints provide for a variety of acceptable tools and management actions to be utilized to achieve the desired conditions. These include but are not limited to variables such as a flexible description of the levels of use (permitted numbers of livestock and/or AUMs of use), season of use, and management methods for livestock grazing based on ecological variation in herbaceous forage production in the Southwestern Region.

Figure 2. Adaptive Management Schematic

Through the adoption of an adaptive management decision, the grazing permit, allotment management plan (AMP) and/or annual operating instructions (AOI) may be administratively modified or re-issued over time, based on monitoring, as long as the modified permit, AMP


2209.13 of 65


and/or AOI are within the bounds of the original NEPA-based adaptive management decision. An effective adaptive management decision will clearly identify an array of possible management practices that are supported through the analysis and documentation developed under NEPA and may be implemented to adjust for monitored changes in resource conditions over an extended period of time.

92.23c – Considerations in Developing an Adaptive Management Alternative

The following should be considered when devising adaptive management strategies.

1. Due to annual climatic variability, the length of time livestock are allowed on the allotment varies from year to year. Length of time may be altered by altering both entry and exit dates.

2. Stocking rates, grazing strategies and season of use are all tools for implementing the decision.

3. Levels of livestock use, (e.g. livestock numbers, maximum or a range of livestock number and/or AUMs etc.) and seasons of use described are only approximations that recognize the natural ecological fluctuation in forage production.

4. When monitoring indicates that changes in management strategy should be considered, permittee ability to adjust management must be integrated into the adaptive management strategy.

5. Other livestock and resource management practices such as excluding or closing areas to domestic livestock grazing, adjusting herding, changing salt locations, supplementing with nutrients, and adding rangeland improvements may also be considered.

6. Based on monitoring results of the previous season, and observed trends toward the accomplishment of resource management objectives, permitted numbers, length of stay, and method of management can be reasonably predicted for the next grazing season.

92.31 – Alternatives

At least two alternatives must be analyzed; the “no action” alternative and the proposed action. The current management alternative should be developed with a clear description. Current management may or may not be analyzed in detail. In some situations, current management, or a slight modification of current management, may be the proposed action. This would be appropriate if current management is consistent with the land management plan, and if through monitoring, it has been shown that current management is achieving resource management objectives. The level of analysis of current management is determined by the issue of whether


2209.13 of 65


current management is responding to the purpose and need of the project. For example, current management may not be allowing for achieving or trending toward desired conditions. Alternatively, a permittee may be proposing differing management. If current management will not be analyzed in detail, then justification must be documented in the project record. In any case, current management must be sufficiently described as it provides a baseline for comparison of the management being proposed.

Current management is a combination of the current permit and how the current permit has been administered through the AMP and AOI, for at least the past 3-5 years (3-5 years is a minimum, longer periods of 10 years or more may also be utilized to document current management) in order to meet resource management objectives.

A well-constructed adaptive management alternative covering an array of possible management practices, responsive to management objectives, should minimize or eliminate the need for multiple alternatives to be developed. Adaptive management should be well defined under all considered alternatives.

92.32 – Effects of Alternatives

An adaptive management alternative identifies the measurable objectives which, if met, provide progress toward achieving the desired conditions. All courses of action are designed to move resource conditions in the project area toward objectives and desired conditions; therefore, the effects of each potential course of action are the same. If multiple alternatives are developed to address issues, the effects may vary by alternative when the different alternatives provide for different courses of action.

The analysis of the environmental effects should consider the outcomes of the proposed management (achieving resource management objectives, documented through monitoring). Analysis of adaptive management alternatives should focus on the environmental effects of remaining within the array of possible management actions/practices that are clearly described for each alternative, and which may be implemented over time through adaptive management. Analyses should consider likely outcomes, not only extremes.

When an alternative includes the construction or removal of structural range improvements, document the anticipated effects (usually temporary) of activities required solely for the implementation of these actions (e.g. the use of heavy equipment, or cross-country motorized access). Also include a discussion of any long-term effects and any new or removed structural range improvements (beneficial or detrimental) on other resources, such as wildlife (migration patterns associated with fences or water developments), hydrology (an impoundment for a stock tank reducing the potential for erosion downstream), or recreation (the removal of an obsolete storage tank that has become an attractive nuisance for the public).


2209.13 of 65


If the effects of any action anticipated are outside the boundaries established by law, regulation or policy (i.e. land management plan guidance) then the alternative should be modified or mitigation should be designed to keep effects within constraints.

93 - INTEGRATION OF OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS INTO RANGELAND MANAGEMENT DECISIONMAKING PROCESS

93.1 – Endangered Species Act (ESA)

The holder of a term grazing permit is entitled to be specifically included as an applicant in the consultation process under §7 of the ESA and regulations found at 50 CFR 402.02. Section 7(a)(3) of the ESA provides that:

Subject to such guidelines as the Secretary [of the Interior] may establish, a Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary on any prospective agency action at the request of, and in cooperation with, the prospective permit or license applicant if the applicant has reason to believe that an endangered species may be present in the area affected by his project and that implementation of such action will likely affect such species.

The term “applicant” refers to “any person…who requires formal approval or authorization from a Federal agency as a prerequisite to conducting the action” (50 CFR 402.02). The responsibility for determining whether a person meets this definition lies with the Responsible Official. Generally, current holders of Term Grazing Permits (including Association Permits, Private Land Permits, and Permits with On-and-Off Provisions) qualify as applicants under the ESA, and may not be denied applicant status. In addition, a person who has applied for and meets all qualifications to hold a Term Grazing Permit should be considered an applicant under the ESA. For further clarification on persons qualifying for applicant status, see the Endangered Species Consultation Handbook, page 2-12, 1998 [“Consultation Handbook”] http://endangered.fws.gov/consultation/s7hndbk/s7hndbk.htm.

The permittee (or qualified applicant) is to be formally notified in writing as soon as it is determined that ESA consultation will be required on a project related to management of the allotment. This notification should occur during the Plan-to-Project analysis, wherein grazing permittees are encouraged to be actively involved in developing resource management objectives and possible management practices. This should occur prior to initiation of the formal NEPA analysis and documentation process. In the event of the presence of federally listed species and/or critical habitat, early consultation (including permittee involvement) should be emphasized as a means to eliminate or reduce conflicts between listed species and the federal action.

Written notification to permittees should include an explanation of why consultation will be required. The letter should encourage permittees to exercise their entitlement to obtain applicant status, and remind them that they must submit a request for applicant status in writing. After the

http://endangered.fws.gov/consultation/s7hndbk/s7hndbk.htm


2209.13 of 65


Responsible Official determines that requesting permittee meets the definition of an applicant, notify the permittee in writing. The Responsible Official must notify consulting office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) either by sending courtesy copy (cc) of the permittee notification at this time or when submitting the Biological Assessment (BA) for consultation.

Applicant status is applicable to both formal and informal consultation and provides grazing permittees an opportunity to:

1. submit information for consideration as the Agency prepares a BA;2. be informed of and consent to any extensions of the consultation period beyond 60

days;3. obtain a copy the draft Biological Opinion and submit written comments to the Forest

Service on the draft Biological Opinion; and4. Provide expertise to the FWS and the Forest Service in developing any reasonable

and prudent alternatives (in the event of a jeopardy opinion).

Any comments the permittee provides to the draft Biological Opinion should come back to the Forest Service. All documentation specifically addressed to the permittee should be included in the 2230 permit file folder.

It should be noted that under the ESA, a permittee’s entitlement to applicant status applies to “conferencing” on a species proposed for listing to the same extent as when “consulting” on a listed species. The direction provided by this section should be followed in either case.

For additional information, refer to the Southwestern Region document entitled “Guide to NEPA and ESA Involvement Prepared for USFS Grazing Permittees,” which also outlines permittee involvement in both the ESA §7 consultation process, and the NEPA processes.

93.2 – National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

All management actions that are certain to be implemented within two (2) years and involve ground disturbance subject to compliance with NHPA must undergo archaeological clearance prior to completing the effects analysis for the environmental assessment.

In order to phase-in the archaeological work for management options involving ground disturbing activities that may be implemented at least two (2) years after the decision, utilize the process authorized under the First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities, Appendix H, Standard Consultation Protocol for Rangeland Management (effective May 17, 2007), or subsequent issuances of or amendments to this Programmatic Agreement.

93.3 – Clean Water Act (CWA)Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Rangeland Management Activities are designed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources that


2209.13 of 65


may result from activities related to livestock grazing. Rangeland use includes grazing by cattle, sheep, goats, horses, and saddle stock used to manage the range and recreational stock. A primary purpose of the rangeland management program is to provide forage for commercial livestock operations. Grazing can also be a means of managing vegetation to meet other resource management objectives, such as fuels management, invasive species management, wildlife habitat improvement, and reduction of competing vegetation in plantations.

There are three national core BMPs for Rangeland Management Activities. These BMPs are to be used when managing livestock grazing on National Forest System (NFS) lands. Each BMP is based on administrative directives that guide and direct the Forest Service planning and permitting of livestock grazing activities on NFS land. BMP Range-1 (Rangeland Management Planning) is a planning BMP for management of grazing allotments. BMP Range-2 (Rangeland Permit Administration) provides practices to be used when administering rangeland permits, including controlling overall livestock numbers, distribution, and season of use. BMP Range-3 (Rangeland Improvements) provides guidance for construction and maintenance of structural and nonstructural improvements and improvement of deteriorated rangeland soil and water resources. (USDA Forest Service 2012)

94 – NEPA-BASED DECISIONS AND IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS WHICH FOLLOW

After a NEPA-based decision goes into effect, grazing permittees must continue to be closely involved in implementation through ongoing allotment administration. This includes adjustments to livestock numbers, seasons of use, and grazing management practices. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring are an essential part of implementation in order for the Responsible Official to determine when and what management adjustments may be needed to achieve resource objectives identified in the NEPA-based decision. Grazing management implemented through allotment management plans (AMPs) and annual operating instructions (AOIs) must continue to be developed with full involvement of permittees and within the bounds of the NEPA-based decision. Grazing permits shall be modified or new permits shall be issued reflecting new AMPs within 90 days of final agency action following a NEPA-based decision to authorize grazing goes into effect. AMPs are incorporated by reference in Part 3 of the term grazing permit.

94.1 – Allotment Management Plans (AMPs)

Allotment management plans (AMPs) will each be uniquely based on the individual landscape and ranch operation. However, certain components are common to almost all AMPs.

Components of an AMP include:

1. goals and objectives of management;2. current management strategies (grazing system(s) or method(s));3. stocking levels;


2209.13 of 65


4. livestock distribution aids;5. animal husbandry;6. range improvement construction and maintenance;7. monitoring plan (requirements and needs);8. travel management guidelines and/or restrictions; and9. associated maps.

Concurrent with modification or issuance of a new term grazing permit following a NEPA-based decision, the AMP must be reviewed and modified, if necessary, to be consistent with the NEPA-based decision. Further, it must be incorporated in Part 3 of the term grazing permit. All allotments must maintain a current AMP developed within the bounds of the NEPA-based decision.

94.2 – Grazing Permits

The term grazing permit shall expressly identify the number, kind, and class of livestock, period of use, and allotment(s) where grazing is permitted. When authorizing grazing following an adaptive management decision through the NEPA process, the number of livestock to be authorized may be expressed as a range of livestock numbers or AUMs, a maximum number of livestock or AUMs, or other ways to express the intent of an adaptive management grazing authorization decision that includes season of use in Part 1 of the term grazing permit. In Part 3 of the permit, clearly specify the range in constraints for the appropriate timing, intensity, frequency, and grazing period variables. The issuance of the term grazing permit is an administrative action as discussed in section 92.23b of the parent text. Also refer to FSH 2209.13_10 R3 Supplement section 15.12.

94.2a – Administrative Review of Decisions Affecting Grazing Authorizations

There is no longer a need to provide for election between postdecisional appeal procedures for decisions relating to occupancy or use under 36 CFR 214, and administrative review procedures (objections) under 36 CFR 218 for proposed actions of the Forest Service concerning projects and activities implementing land management plans and documented with a record of decision or decision notice. Because 36 CFR 218 provides a predecisional administrative review process and 36 CFR 214 provides a postdecisional appeal process, the two review procedures will not run in tandem.

36 CFR 218. Provides a predecisional objection process for Forest Service decisions implementing a land management plan, such as authorizing livestock grazing to occur on an allotment, that affect the public in general. Therefore, it is appropriate for the predecisional objection process for these decisions to be open to the public (including existing permittees), and for the objection procedures to provide for public participation.


2209.13 of 65


36 CFR 214. Like the former 251 appeal procedures, 214 appeal procedures apply to Forest Service decisions involving the term grazing permit(s) associated with the previous decision to authorize livestock grazing to occur on an allotment. These decisions uniquely affect the permit holder(s) or solicited applicants. Consequently, it is appropriate for the administrative appeal process to be available only to the permit holder(s) or solicited applicants.

Livestock Grazing Decisions That Are Appealable.

To be appealable under 36 CFR 214, a decision must be issued by a Responsible Official in writing and must fall into one of the following categories:

1. modification of a term grazing permit issued under 36 CFR part 222, subpart A. Issuance of annual operating instructions does not constitute a permit modification and is not an appealable decision;

2. suspension or cancellation, other than cancellation resulting from the permittee’s waiver to the United States, of a term grazing permit issued under 36 CFR part 222, subpart A;

3. denial of reauthorization of livestock grazing under a term grazing permit if the holder files an application for a new permit before the existing permit expires; or

4. denial of a term grazing permit to a solicited applicant under 36 CFR part 222, subpart C.

“Cancel” and “suspend,” as applied to grazing permits, are defined in 36 CFR 222.1(b). Both terms encompass reductions in the number of authorized livestock and/or the authorized season of use. “Cancel” means action taken to permanently invalidate a term grazing permit in whole or in part. “Suspend” means temporary withholding of a term grazing permit privilege, in whole or in part.

The holder of a term grazing permit issued in a state with a mediation program certified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture may request mediation regarding a decision to suspend or cancel the permit as authorized by 36 CFR 222.4(a)(2)(i), (ii), (iv), and (v) and (a)(3) through (6). Any request for mediation must be included in a timely appeal filed in accordance with 36 CFR 214.

Livestock Grazing Decisions That Are Not Appealable.

Permit holders and solicited applicants may not appeal any decisions issued by a Responsible Official that are not expressly identified above.

For example, issuing annual operating instructions (AOIs) is not an appealable decision because AOIs do not permanently modify a term grazing permit. Rather, AOIs merely implement prior management decisions that are subject to administrative review under 36 CFR 214 and 218. AOIs are written instructions for the upcoming grazing season and provide for annual changes in on and off dates in response to resource conditions, which are allowed under Part 2, Sections 8(a) and (c) of the term grazing permit. Activities identified in AOIs must be within the scope of the


2209.13 of 65


AMP and the term grazing permit. New decisions concerning denial, modification, and maintenance of range improvements are not made in AOIs. To the extent feasible, AOIs should be developed in cooperation with the permit holder.

Exhibit 07 provides suggested language to accompany the issuance of a new permit based on a NEPA-based decision.

94.3 – Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs)

Annual operating instructions should be developed within the scope of the project-level decision and associated grazing permit. AOIs are not subject to administrative appeal. The AOIs implement specific management actions on an annual basis to achieve resource management objectives provided in the AMP. AOIs should be prepared in full collaboration with the permittee and are responsive to annual resource conditions.

95 – MONITORING

The need for monitoring shall be included in the project-level NEPA-based decision. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring are both critical in determining when or if adaptive management changes are needed. The monitoring is also critical in tracking movement toward resource management objectives. Attributes to be monitored and protocols for monitoring are described during the formulation of desired conditions and resource management objectives. A monitoring plan is part of the allotment management plan (AMP) and is comprised of five key components: 1) purpose for monitoring; 2) attributes or indicators to be monitored; 3) method(s) selected to monitor those attributes; 4) frequency that monitoring will be conducted; and 5) the location, benchmark or key area where monitoring will take place.

The purpose(s) for each monitoring activity should be well documented in the project record and allotment file (file code 2210). Attributes to be monitored should be tied to the resource management objectives documented in the NEPA-based decision and the AMP. Monitoring methods that are appropriate for attributes associated with resource management objectives or a desired condition should be selected. Determine the frequency of monitoring based on the potential for detectible changes in the attributes to be monitored. Short-term implementation monitoring of forage and production attributes should occur at key areas. Long-term effectiveness monitoring often occurs at benchmarks or permanent plots. In many instances, the key areas and permanent plots are one and the same.

Key ungulate forage monitoring areas (key areas) are identified in the AMP. Although not required, key areas may also be identified in the rangeland management specialist report and/or the NEPA-compliant environmental documents. These key areas will normally be 1/4 to 1 mile from water, located on productive soils on level to intermediate slopes, and be readily accessible for grazing. Key area size may be 20 to 500 acres. In some situations, such as high mountain


2209.13 of 65


meadows with perennial streams, key areas may be closer than 1/4 mile to water and less than 20 acres. Within key areas, select appropriate key species to monitor average allowable use.

In critical areas, designated monitoring locations must be determined based on the purpose, attributes and appropriate methods. It is important to tie monitoring to the multiple uses to be provided. For example, if a resource management objective is tied to the habitat of a particular wildlife species, it is important to determine and document whether achieving the objective is having the anticipated effect(s) on the wildlife species.

Although the process of determining desired and existing conditions, developing resource management objectives, designing management practices, and monitoring appears to be linear, in reality it is not. It is an iterative process and happens concurrently. Continual evaluation of management, through the adaptive management process, provides a framework for management which can address the complexities of responses within an ecosystem. Monitoring results should be evaluated by the interdisciplinary team and the Responsible Official to determine if management is achieving resource management objectives. Based on the evaluation of the results, in light of ecological dynamics such as fire, flooding and weather, adjustments in management may or may not be required. The evaluation and potential adjustment completes an iteration of the adaptive management cycle.

Implementation monitoring may include such items as: 1) actual use in each pasture; 2) condition of range improvements; 3) seasonal utilization, annual utilization, or stubble heights; or 4) other annual monitoring that may be important in site-specific situations. Effectiveness monitoring should include attributes, locations and methods that are capable of detecting movement toward resource management objectives or a desired condition. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring should be designed and carried out in an open, cooperative, and inclusive process, which includes the Responsible Official, interdisciplinary team, rangeland users and other interested parties. This process should also determine priorities for monitoring. Priority areas may include critical areas, such as federally listed species habitat, impaired streams, or other areas important for sustaining the livestock operation.

The monitoring plan should be feasible and should be consistent with Forest-wide monitoring goals. Both qualitative and quantitative methods can be of value. Qualitative monitoring, such as the Landscape Appearance Method, the Grazing Response Index or photographs can depict annual impacts. Long term qualitative monitoring, such as repeat photography at an identified permanent location can depict changes over time. Qualitative monitoring can be supplemental to quantitative monitoring.

Quantitative monitoring for trend towards achievement of resource management objectives is the foundation for any adaptive management decision. Each identified objective should have monitoring which indicates trend toward the desired condition. It is important to remain consistent with monitoring methods and locations to assess changes. Should new methods become available, the interdisciplinary team should evaluate those methods for applicability


2209.13 of 65


based on monitoring objective. Changes to either methods or locations should only occur deliberatively and with the same open, cooperative, and inclusive process as the development of the initial monitoring plan.

Procedures for rangeland assessment and monitoring are not limited to procedures in the current edition of the Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide. Other sources of information related to appropriate procedures for rangeland assessments and monitoring for application with the Southwestern Region include the following sources, which are hereby incorporated by reference for use within the Southwestern Region.

Monitoring.

1. Sampling Vegetation Attributes. Technical Reference 1734-4. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Coulloudon, B., Podborny, P. Eshelman, K., Rasmussen, A., Gianola, J., Robles, B., Habich, N. Shaver, P. Hughes, L., Spehar, J., Johnson, C., Willoughby, J. Pellant, M. 1999a. 164 p. (http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/samplveg.pdf). Many of these methods are currently being developed electronically for storage in the NRMIS database.

2. Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements. Technical Reference 1734-3. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Coulloudon, B., Podborny, P. Eshelman, K., Rasmussen, A., Gianola, J., Robles, B., Habich, N. Shaver, P. Hughes, L., Spehar, J., Johnson, C., Willoughby, J. Pellant, M. 1999b. 165 p. (http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/utilstudies.pdf). Many of these methods are currently being developed electronically for storage in the NRM database.

3. Measuring and monitoring plant populations. Technical Reference 1730-1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Elzinga, C.L., D.W. Salzer, and J.W. Willoughby. 1998. 477 pp. (http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/techref.htm).

4. Riparian area management: Multiple indicator monitoring (MIM) of stream channels and streamside vegetation. Technical Reference 1737-23. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO. Burton, T.A., S.J. Smith, and E.R. Cowley. 2011. 155 pp.

5. Rangeland Monitoring and the Parker 3-Step Method: Overview, Perspectives and Current Applications. Ruyle, G. and J. Dyess. 2010. University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Publication 1525.

6. Arizona Guide to Rangeland Monitoring and Assessment. Smith, L., G. Ruyle, W. Meyer, J. Dyess, J. Maynard, S. Barker, S. Williams, D. Bell, C. Lane, S. Cassady, and W. Couloudon. 2012. Rio Nuevo Press, Tucson, Arizona.

http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/techref.htm

http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/utilstudies.pdf

http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/samplveg.pdf


2209.13 of 65


7. USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region Fire and Range Common Non-Forested Vegetation Sampling Protocol (CNVSP) Field Guide, November 2013.

8. Some Methods for Monitoring Rangelands, University of Arizona Extension Report # 9043 1997. Several of these methods are also in ITR 1734-4 and ITR 1734-3.

9. Alma H. Winward. 2000. Monitoring the Vegetation Resources in Riparian Areas. GTR-47.

10. Allison, Christopher D., Terrell T. Baker; Jon C. Boren, Byron D. Wright; and Alexander “Sam” G. Fernald. Monitoring Rangelands in New Mexico Range Improvement Task Force Report 53.

Assessments.

1. Rapid Assessment Methodology RITF Report # 58.

2. Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health TR 1734-6.

3. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. TR 1737-15 1998.

4. Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Lentic Riparian – Wetland Areas. TR 1737-11 1994.

References to assist in planning and monitoring.

1. Principles of Obtaining and Interpreting Utilization Data on Rangelands AZ1375 05/2007.

2. The Grazing Response Index: A Simple and Effective Method to Evaluate Grazing Impacts. Rangelands 21(4) 3-6, 1999.

3. Grazing Management Processes and Strategies for Riparian – Wetland Areas. TR 1737-20 2006.

4. Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory Technical Guide: Landscape and Land Unit Scales GTR Report WO-68. 2005.

5. Existing Vegetation Classification and Mapping Technical Guide Version 1.0. GTR Report WO-67. 2005.

6. Rangeland Management Before, During and After Drought AZ1136 07/1999.


2209.13 of 65


7. University of Idaho Stubble Height Report. University of Idaho Stubble Height Study Team. 2004.

Refer to exhibit 06 for an example of monitoring direction.

96 – REVIEW OF EXISTING PROJECT-LEVEL NEPA-BASED DECISIONS

Under FSH 1909.15 section 18, reviews do not update or modify existing NEPA-based analyses and decisions in any way. Rather, the “section 18 review” process merely provides a means of determining if existing disclosure and decision documents remain valid in support of the ongoing activity of permitted livestock grazing. Under this process, an interdisciplinary team evaluates the results of monitoring and any other new information to determine if livestock grazing, as currently permitted and administered, is consistent with the scope and extent of effects disclosed under the most recent NEPA-based analysis and decision authorizing the grazing activity. Region 3 Form R3-FS-2200-27 (Review of Existing Grazing Allotment, Project –Level NEPA-Based Decisions), has been provided as a tool for completing Section 18 reviews of existing NEPA analyses and decisions for grazing allotments. The form is available on the Forest Service Internet Site: http://fsweb.r3.fs.fed.us/fsrecords/forms/index.shtml

The Responsible Official must periodically review the NEPA-based disclosure and decision documents in light of the grazing activity and existing permit to insure the grazing activity (and associated grazing permit(s) AMP and AOI) are consistent with and within the bounds of the effects disclosed in the existing NEPA documentation. Such reviews should occur, at a minimum, prior to the reissuance of an expiring permit. These reviews should also occur whenever relevant new information or changed conditions warrant reconsideration of the current grazing authorization. If the review indicates that the grazing permit and activity are consistent with the existing NEPA documentation, the Responsible Official must document this finding for the record (2210 allotment file). If, as the result of this review, the Responsible Official determines that a correction, supplementation, or revision of an environmental document is necessary (i.e. the documents are not consistent), then the NEPA process, as outlined in this chapter, must be immediately reinitiated, or scheduled. This is done by adding the allotment to the allotment NEPA schedule prepared under provisions of the “1995 Rescissions Act” (PL 104-19, Section 504). The relevant direction in FSH 1909.15 sections 18.2-18.4 provides additional guidance if a correction, supplementation, or revision of an environmental document is necessary. If a new decision is to be made under NEPA, the proposed decision is subject to the predecisional Notice, Comment and Objection process according to 36 CFR 218. The permittee may appeal the modified or new permit based upon the final decision according to 36 CFR 214.

97 – REFERENCES

Hall, G.R. 1963. The myth and reality of multiple use forestry. Natural Resources Journal 3: 276-290.

http://fsweb.r3.fs.fed.us/fsrecords/forms/index.shtml


2209.13 of 65


Smith, L., G. Ruyle, W. Meyer, J. Dyess, J. Maynard, S. Barker, S. Williams, D. Bell, C. Lane, S. Cassady, and W. Couloudon. 2012. Arizona Guide to Rangeland Monitoring and Assessment. Rio Nuevo Press, Tucson, Arizona.

University of Idaho Stubble Height Study Team. 2004. University of Idaho Stubble Height Study Report. Submitted to Idaho State Director, BLM, and Regional Forester, Region 4, US Forest Service. University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, Moscow, ID. 26p.

USDA Forest Service, 2008. Foundations of Forest Planning: Volume 1 (Version 3.1) Model of a Forest Plan. 6 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment Activities (FSM 1940). Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 2009 Climate Change Consideration in Project Level NEPA Analysis.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for water quality management on National Forest System lands, Volume 1-National core BMP technical guide. FS-990a. Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Land Management Planning Handbook (FSH 1909.12). Washington, D.C.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. Interagency Ecological Site Handbook for Rangelands (H-1734-1). Washington, DC, USA. http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=33943.wba.

Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=33943.wba


2209.13 of 65


98 – EXHIBITS

98 - Exhibit 01

Plan–To-Project Analysis Examples (Refer to Section 92.1)

The Plan to Project Matrix is an optional tool to assist the interdisciplinary team to generate resource goals and information gaps. The following are examples and guidance in completing the matrix. The examples are based on an ecological type description developed through the TEUI process for the Tonto National Forest. Also included are example desired conditions, existing conditions and objectives statements. The background information about the ecological type description used in the examples and a blank Plan-to-Project Matrix are provided as Exhibits.

Desired conditions are fairly broad goals, not actions. Desired conditions should be determined and discussed in a specific, quantifiable and focused manner. Inventory of current conditions which could be taken from Range Analysis files, sampling relative to TEUI, or other inventories such as those conducted for wildlife or fuels management.

Determining resource management objectives is an interdisciplinary process. Resource management objectives must be directly related to attaining desired conditions (Refer to 92.11a). Resource management objectives are composed of three components: what, where and when. The result of this analysis is measurable specifics within a timeframe.

Why: Determining and documenting why a resource management objective is necessary or desired may assist the responsible official in making a decision. Often, knowing why something is being done can inform possible actions. For example, some change may be necessary to provide habitat conditions required in a federally listed species recovery plan. Another example: knowing the importance of certain ecological attributes can assist interdisciplinary team members in determining priorities for management actions. The “why” may be based on a particular management plan, such as a land management plan, a riparian management plan, or an allotment management plan. The “why” may also be based on a goal, e.g.to reduce sedimentation to a particular level in a particular stream.

What: What is the desired condition? What change is needed specifically to move toward the desired condition? This could be related to a specific vegetative condition such as a riparian area condition, a vegetative ground cover condition, or a species habitat condition. Development of site-specific desired conditions and associated changes needed to move toward those conditions are determined by the interdisciplinary team in collaboration with stakeholders. Therefore, desired conditions take into account human dimensions. Desired conditions must be feasible and tied to site potential, e.g. TES mapping and ecotype descriptions. The change needed in order to attain desired conditions becomes the “what” of the resource management objective.


2209.13 of 65



2209.13 of 65


98 - Exhibit 01 (Continued)


Where: Where could be described by specific location, such as particular creeks or a particular watershed. Alternatively, where may be established more generally, e.g. a TES map unit or a vegetation type.

When: When could be described by a year within an attainable timeframe or could be based on a particular time of year such as spring or end of the growing season.Plan-to-Project Matrix: Examples from the Tonto National Forest

Plan-to-Project MatrixAllotment: Big Bear, Pastures: Oso, Sow, Boar, Cub TrapDesignated Area: Tonto National Forest Draft TEUI Map Unit 458 Typic Argiustoll, clayey-skeletal, mixed, superactive, mesic; deep, extremely gravelly sandy loam; PIMOF/JUDE2/QUGR3/BOHI2 – potential natural vegetation, 0-15% slope

Vegetative Resource Wildlife Resource Soil Resource1A. Potential Mixed grassland with warm

season grasses well represented. Shrub and Tree components diverse.

Vegetative diversity for variety of woodland and grassland wildlife species.

Bare ground of 5-15% with a rock component of 70% and vegetative ground cover of 20-30%.

1B. Desired Condition Vegetative communities reflective of diversity and various age classes within this ecotype.

High structural diversity provided by shrubs, which increases availability of forage, mast and cover.

Soil surfaces protected by vegetative ground cover, which includes vegetation basal cover, and litter.

1C. Existing Condition Lack of diversity in grass species largely due to tree encroachment and to some historic domestic grazing pressure. Appropriate species composition present in the Cub Trap, based on the ecotype description.

A mix of age classes and structural diversity with mature to decadent shrub stands covering much of the area. Shrub stands in the Cub Trap hedged more so than in other areas, possibly due to fall livestock use and deer migration.

Active erosion in some portions of the Cub Trap, largely due to the road leading to the livestock handling infrastructure and somewhat due to trailing and concentration of animals for shipping. Bare ground averages 10%, which is appropriate in the Oso, Sow and Boar Pastures.

1D. What Increase the diversity of native perennial grasses.

Increase the presence of young to mature shrub vegetation.

Decrease erosional effects of infrastructure.

1D. Where Map Unit 458 in the Oso and Sow Pastures.

Map Unit 458 in the Oso, Sow and Boar pasture.

Map Unit 458 in the Cub Trap on locations affected by infrastructure use.

1D. When Within one decade. Within 20 years. Within one decade.1D. Why Diversity of grasses is

important to wildlife and livestock (forage), and general ecosystem health.

A mosaic of age classes within the shrub component is important for various wildlife needs.

Soil stability, or general soil condition, is maintained during monsoon season.


2209.13 of 65




Sample Desired Condition Statement

Vegetative and soils conditions provide for a broad array of rangeland uses, such as wildlife habitat, livestock production, and properly functioning watersheds. This will be demonstrated by vegetative communities reflective of Map Unit 458 while taking into account landscape variability. The potential plant communities comprise mostly warm season grasses, shrubs and trees. Some cool season grasses and forbs may also be present, although not common. The potential plant communities provide forage and cover for livestock, wildlife and birds. The mosaic of grass, shrub and tree vegetation provides patterns which meet these needs within close proximity. The shrub layer is especially important for wildlife needs and is maintained in clumps and patches throughout the landscape. Soil condition should reflect adequate vegetative ground cover for protecting the soil surface.

The above statement reflects the desired condition for three resource areas which grazing management can address, providing more detail than displayed in the matrix. The matrix was utilized by the interdisciplinary team to guide initial discussion and document the discussion.

Sample Existing Condition Statement

Most of the 458 map unit locations demonstrate diverse species composition when compared to the potential plant community; however, the Sow and Boar pastures lack perennial grass diversity, with blue grama and curly mesquite being most common. There is a remnant presence of sideoats grama and hairy grama.

The shrub component throughout the allotment is diverse relative to species and age classes, but more mature to decadent stands are observed than young to mature stands. Shrub stands in the Cub Trap appear hedged more so than other areas of the allotment. This may be due to the timing of use in that pasture unit in the fall and winter by domestic livestock as well as deer migrating to lower elevations in the fall.

Surface rock fragments play an important role in the function of this site; however, vegetative ground cover is also important. The Oso pasture displays adequate vegetative ground cover. The Sow and Boar pastures provide adequate vegetative ground cover in spite of the lack of diversity. The Cub Trap, which is a small gathering trap utilized during the fall for weaning and shipping demonstrates appropriate diversity, but displays negative soil effects from the livestock handling facilities and the road utilized for livestock hauling as well as by recreationists. Rills and gullies have formed due to the condition of the road and associated run-off.


2209.13 of 65




This existing condition statement addresses all three resource areas addressed through the desired condition statement. It addresses where current condition is meeting desired condition and where there is a departure between the two.

Sample Resource Management Objective Statements

In Map Unit 458 within the Oso and Sow Pastures, facilitate an increase in perennial grass diversity as evidenced by a more diverse presence of perennial native grasses within one decade. It is anticipated that 10 years will be needed to reflect these changes, although this is dependent upon management actions and upon weather variability.

In Map Unit 458 within the Oso, Sow and Boar pastures increase the presence of young to mature shrub stands. As these are dynamic changes in vegetation types largely driven by episodic events, such as fire, it is anticipated that 20 years will be the timeframe necessary to meet this objective.

In Map Unit 458 within the Oso, Sow and Boar Pastures maintain at least the current vegetative ground cover. Decrease gullies associated with the condition of the road leading to the handling facilities within one decade in the Cub Trap.

These objective statements address all three resource areas for which desired condition and existing condition are not the same. They also reflect maintaining existing conditions where desired condition and existing condition are the same. The objective statements address a concern not directly associated with grazing, but with the required infrastructure for the livestock operation. The statement addressing the erosion from the road leading to the shipping facility provides the opportunity to the interdisciplinary team to address road improvement practices in addition to grazing management practices as part of the proposed action.


2209.13 of 65


98 - Exhibit 02

Documentation of Management Actions (Refer to Section 92.14)

State possible management practices which would be utilized to move resource conditions from existing conditions to desired conditions. These could be grazing practices or other management practices such as vegetation treatments and/or erosion control treatments.

Sample Management Action Statements

Proposed permitted use will vary between 1200 and 3600 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) year-long. Grazing will occur through a rotational system, (either deferred or rest-rotation grazing) which will allow plants opportunity for growth or regrowth.

Grazing management will periodically adjust the timing, intensity, and frequency of grazing to facilitate an increase in the diversity of perennial grasses in the Oso and Sow pastures. The high proportion of blue grama and curly mesquite may limit increases in other species, however with the presence of sideoats and hairy grama some increase in diversity can be expected with intensified management. Generally, moderate use during the early part of the growing season allows for regrowth during the remainder of the season and light to conservative use when grazed at the end of the growing season when regrowth is limited. Total use at the end of the growing season should generally be within conservative use levels of 30-40 percent utilization to maintain or improve rangeland vegetation (Holechek, J.L., H. Gomez, M. Francisco, and D. Galt. 1999. Grazing studies: What We've Learned. Rangelands: 21(2)). Additional management includes the following. Limit the grazing period pastures are exposed to livestock to limit other impacts to the soil resource such as trailing and trampling of travel routes, saddles and loafing areas. Provide periodic growing season rest to allow for increased plant vigor, production, and reproduction.

Grazing management alone will not alter the age class distribution of shrubs in the Oso, Sow and Boar pastures. Fire is generally the event which promotes an increase in young shrubs. The ability to adapt livestock management to correspond with planned or unplanned fire will be important to the desired increase in the diversity of shrub age classes. Timing, intensity, grazing occurrence and grazing period will all be utilized to provide for the desired shrub component. Livestock management adaptions could address providing for increase fuel loads before planned fire events or to allow for resprouting shrubs following fire.

In the Oso, Sow and Boar pastures, livestock will be managed to allow for the maintenance of vegetative and soil conditions. In order to improve the soil conditions associated with the road in Cub Trap, the road will be reconstructed. This will involve the addition of waterbars and gravel. This will provide for improved livestock hauling as well as improved travel for


2209.13 of 65



Documentation of Management Actions (Refer to Section 92.14)

recreationists. Improving the road condition may also allow for greater flexibility in removing the livestock during shipping; thus potentially decreasing the grazing period in this trap.

Proposed improvements appear to be adequate to achieve the desired management and resource objectives. Should acceptable progress toward desired conditions not be observed in the Red River Riparian Corridor within the Oso Pasture, creation of a riparian pasture by fencing along the Red and Blue Mesas will be completed. Should this occur, water will be developed via wells on the Red and Blue Mesas. Grazing management will adjust the timing, intensity, frequency, and grazing period to allow for increased vegetative material and litter cover.

The above management action statements provide management to address the resource management objectives for vegetation, wildlife and soil resources. The above example also addresses the need for a contingent management action should it appear a resource management objective will not be achieved. In this case, it was a riparian corridor that had desired condition, existing condition, and resource management objectives developed for it elsewhere.

Sample Causative Relationship Statements:

In Map Unit 458 with mostly mature to decadent shrubs, fire must be utilized to increase the presence of young to mature shrubs. Once fire has occurred, either via prescribed burning or through natural ignition managed for resource objectives, livestock will be grazed managing the timing, intensity, frequency, and grazing period to allow for adequate vegetative material and litter cover.

The above statement is provided as an example for situations where it is recognized grazing management will not allow for progress toward a desired condition until an overriding departure from desired condition is first addressed.


2209.13 of 65


98 - Exhibit 03

Decision Framework (Refer to Section 92.21)

Sample Decision Framework Statement

The District Ranger is the responsible official who will decide whether to continue to authorize livestock grazing on the ________ allotment(s) and, if so, under what terms.


2209.13 of 65


98 - Exhibit 04

Purpose and Need (Refer to Section 92.22)

Sample Purpose and Need Statement

The purpose and need of this proposed action is for authorization of livestock grazing in a manner that moves toward land management plan objectives and desired conditions. Authorization is needed on this/these allotment(s) because:

Where consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives, there is Congressional intent to allow grazing on suitable lands (Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 1964, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976).

Continued domestic livestock grazing is consistent with land management plan desired conditions, goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and suitability when provided in the forest plan (36 CFR 219).

It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable for grazing consistent with land management plans (FSM 2203.1; 36 CFR 222.2 (c)).

It is Forest Service policy to continue contributions to the economic and social well-being of people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities that depend on range resources for their livelihood (FSM 2202.1).

[Add one of the following paragraphs:]

A management plan is in place and livestock management is shown to be meeting or moving toward desired conditions. Management is consistent with land management plan desired conditions, goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines. There appears to be need for only minor change from current management.

- OR -

There is a need for change:

[Briefly include source of desired condition(s) which are not being achieved, e.g. forest plan, collaboration, etc.]

There is a need for change from current management as the allotment(s) is/are not meeting or moving toward desired conditions in an acceptable timeframe.


2209.13 of 65




Through collaboration with stakeholders, as well as Forest Plan direction, desired conditions are vegetative and soils conditions which provide for a broad array of rangeland uses, such as wildlife habitat, livestock production, and properly functioning watersheds. Vegetative and soils conditions provide for a broad array of rangeland uses, such as wildlife habitat, livestock production, and properly functioning watersheds. This will be demonstrated by vegetative communities reflective of Map Unit 458 (Typic Argiustoll, clayey-skeletal, mixed, superactive, mesic; deep, extremely gravelly sandy loam; PIMOF/JUDE2/QUGR3/BOHI2 – potential natural vegetation, 0-15% slope) while taking into account landscape variability. The potential plant communities comprise mostly warm season grasses, shrubs and trees. Some cool season grasses and forbs may also be present, although not common. The potential plant communities provide forage and cover for livestock, wildlife and birds. The mosaic of grass, shrub and tree vegetation provides patterns which meet these needs within close proximity. The shrub layer is especially important for wildlife needs and is maintained in clumps and patches throughout the landscape. Soil condition should reflect adequate vegetative ground cover for protecting the soil surface.

Under existing conditions, most of the 458 map unit locations demonstrate diverse species composition when compared to the potential plant community; however, the Sow and Boar pastures lack perennial grass diversity, with blue grama and curly mesquite being most common. There is a remnant presence of sideoats grama and hairy grama.

The shrub component throughout the allotment is diverse relative to species and age classes, but more mature to decadent stands are observed than young to mature stands. Shrub stands in the Cub Trap appear hedged more so than other areas of the allotment. This may be due to the timing of use in that pasture unit in the fall and winter by domestic livestock as well as deer migrating to lower elevations in the fall.

Surface rock fragments play an important role in the function of this site; however, vegetative ground cover is also important. The Oso pasture displays adequate vegetative ground cover. The Sow and Boar pastures provide adequate vegetative ground cover in spite of the lack of diversity. The Cub Trap, which is a small gathering trap utilized during the fall and winter for weaning and shipping, demonstrates appropriate diversity, but displays negative soil effects from: (1) the livestock handling facilities and the road utilized for livestock hauling; and (2) recreationists. Rills and gullies have formed due to the condition of the road and associated run-off. Topography and livestock handling infrastructure prevent use of any other part of the allotment for weaning and shipping.

Therefore, there is a need for change. The need for change will be addressed through resource management objectives.


2209.13 of 65




Objective 1: In Map Unit 458 within the Oso and Sow Pastures, facilitate an increase in perennial grass diversity as evidenced by a more diverse presence of perennial native grasses within one decade. It is anticipated that 10 years will be needed to reflect these changes, although this is dependent upon management actions and weather variability.

Objective 2: In Map Unit 458 within the Oso, Sow and Boar pastures increase the presence of young to mature shrub stands. As these are dynamic changes in vegetation types largely driven by episodic events, such as fire, it is anticipated that 20 years will be the timeframe necessary to meet this objective.

Objective 3: In Map Unit 458 within the Oso, Sow and Boar Pastures, maintain at least the current vegetative ground cover. Decrease gullies associated with the condition of the road leading to the handling facilities within one decade in the Cub Trap.


2209.13 of 65


98 - Exhibit 05

Proposed Action (Refer to Section 92.23)

Describe the authorization, management, improvements and monitoring required to show movement toward or to maintain desired conditions. The management actions must be comprehensive enough for resource specialists to conduct a useful effects analysis, yet flexible enough to allow for adjustments within some range of variability. Also describe constraints under which grazing will take place. (Refer to Exhibit 2 for examples.)

Do NOT describe the permit. The permit is an instrument that implements the decision to authorize grazing.

Do NOT limit the proposal to a 10-year term. The proposed authorization should be built to last until the agency has reason to change it.

Sample Proposed Action Statement

Authorization:

The _______ Ranger District, _______ National Forest proposes to continue to authorize livestock grazing on the _______ allotment(s) under the following terms:

Proposed authorized use will vary between 1200 and 3600 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) year-long. Grazing will occur through a rotational system, (either deferred or rest-rotation grazing) which will allow plants opportunity for growth or regrowth.

Motorized travel will be authorized off of designated motorized routes for the purpose of routine maintenance of structural range improvements. To the extent possible, roads and trails designated for administrative use only will be used, with occasional off-road travel only when necessary. Maintenance needs and off-route travel required to meet those needs will be discussed with the permittee annually. Areas, conditions, and times to avoid motorized cross-country travel will be identified in order to prevent resource damage or degradation.

Management:

Grazing management will periodically adjust the timing, intensity, and frequency of grazing to facilitate an increase in the diversity of perennial grasses in the Oso and Sow pastures. The high proportion of blue grama and curly mesquite may limit increases in other species, however with the presence of sideoats and hairy grama some increase in diversity can be expected with intensified management.


2209.13 of 65




Generally, moderate use during the early part of the growing season allows for regrowth during the remainder of the season and light to conservative use when grazed at the end of the growing season as regrowth is limited. Total use at the end of the growing season should generally be within conservative use levels of 30-40 percent utilization to maintain or improve rangeland vegetation (Holechek, J.L., H. Gomez, M. Francisco, and D. Galt. 1999. Grazing studies: What We've Learned. Rangelands: 21(2)). Maintaining conservative utilization levels will allow for adequate vegetation remaining for soil protection. Additional management includes the following. Limit the grazing period pastures are exposed to livestock to limit other impacts to the soil resource such as trailing and trampling of travel routes, saddles and loafing areas. Provide periodic growing season rest to allow for increased plant vigor, production, and reproduction.

Improvements:

Grazing management alone will not alter the age class distribution of shrubs in the Oso, Sow and Boar pastures. Fire is generally the event which promotes an increase in young shrubs. The ability to adapt livestock management to correspond with planned or unplanned fire will be important to the desired increase in the diversity of shrub age classes. Timing, intensity, grazing occurrence and grazing period will all be utilized to provide for the desired shrub component. Livestock management adaptations could address providing for increased fuel loads before planned fire events or to allow for resprouting shrubs following fire.

In the Oso, Sow and Boar pastures livestock will be managed to allow for the maintenance of vegetative and soil conditions. In order to improve the soil conditions associated with the road in Cub Trap, the road will be reconstructed. This will involve the addition of waterbars and gravel. This will provide for improved livestock hauling as well as improved travel for recreationists. Improving the road condition may also allow for greater flexibility in removing the livestock during shipping; thus potentially decreasing the grazing period in this trap.

Proposed improvements appear to be adequate to achieve the desired management and resource objectives. Should acceptable progress toward desired conditions not be observed in the Red River Riparian Corridor within the Oso Pasture, creation of a riparian pasture by fencing along the Red and Blue Mesas will be completed. Should this occur, water will be developed via wells on the Red and Blue Mesas. Grazing management will adjust the timing, intensity, frequency, and grazing period to allow for increased vegetative material and litter cover.


2209.13 of 65




Monitoring:

A monitoring plan will be developed as part of the allotment management plan. The monitoring plan will address implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring.

Implementation Monitoring: Within key areas of the Oso, Sow and Boar pastures, annual monitoring will be conducted, which may include, but is not limited to, (1) evaluating grazing intensity during the season, and (2)utilization at the end of the growing season in order to practice adaptive management and make necessary management changes needed for plant development and (3)plant regrowth for recovery from the grazing event. Managing for plant development and recovery will provide for adequate ground cover and potential changes in species composition within Map Unit 458. Example methods for implementation monitoring may include comparative yield, grazed plant count, paired plot clipping and weighing, and the utilization gauge. Qualitative monitoring may also occur, such as the Grazing Response Index or the Landscape Appearance Method.

Implementation monitoring may also include actual use (livestock numbers and dates in each pasture), condition of range improvements, and deviations from the AOI.

Effectiveness Monitoring: Long term condition and trend monitoring will be used to assess the effectiveness of management in achieving desired objectives. This monitoring may include, but is not limited to, measurements to track upland vegetative conditions and soil condition towards achievement of the objectives. Example methods for effectiveness monitoring may include, but are not limited to, pace quadrat frequency, Parker 3-step, pace transects for ground cover, and repeat photography. Monitoring will occur on historic benchmarks, which correspond with key areas. Monitoring of the Red River Riparian Corridor will occur to determine the need for the creation of a riparian pasture. Depending upon the method selected, monitoring should occur at an interval of at least every 5-10 years in key areas.


2209.13 of 65


98 - Exhibit 06

Examples of Plan-To-Project Matrix Formats (Refer to Section 95)

Example 1

Example of Plan-To-Project Matrix Format

Plan-to-Project MatrixAllotment: Designated Area:

1A) Potential

1B) Desired Condition

1C) ExistingCondition

1D)What

1D)Where

1D)When

1D)Why



2209.13 of 65



Example 2

Example of Plan-to-Project Analysis Format

1) General Information:a. Allotment:b. Interdisciplinary team members:c. Meeting dates:d. Available data summaries:

2) Condition and Trend

Year Range Vegetation Condition Score and Rating*

Soil Condition/Stability Trend Score and Rating*

2009

*Rating Values for Vegetation and Soil: Very Poor =0-20; Poor =21-40; Fair =41-60; Good-61-80; Excellent=81-100.

3) Actual UseYear Actual Use (AUMs) Season Year Actual Use (AUMs) Season

* Authorized use, actual use, when available, and billing data are maintained in the 2200 Range Files on the District and are hereby incorporated by reference.

** Billed number instead of permittee-reported actual use.98 - Exhibit 06 (Continued)


2209.13 of 65



Example 2 (Continued)

4) Matrix (column headings are examples only – change column headings and add additional columns to include all resource areas that are appropriate for the allotment(s)/pasture(s) being analyzed)

RESOURCE Vegetation/-Ecological Status

Rangeland Management Status

(RMS)Soils

Wildlife/Fish/Herps/Rare Plants

& HabitatExisting Condition*:Desired Condition**:Factor(s) of Concern:Location(s) of Concerns:Site-specific DC: Measurable Indicators of Progress Toward DC: Site-specific Management Objectives:Resource Protection Measures: Tool Box: (optional measures that could be applied under Adaptive Management)

* Existing condition information for each resource is derived from the resource data files and associated reference materials, on-site visits, inventory data, and the Prescott National Forest Geographic Information System databases, including ortho-photos. These data sets are hereby incorporated by reference.

** Desired future condition information is guided by the Forest Land Management Plan, and is also augmented by the knowledge and recommendations of the Resource professionals on the Forest and the Range Interdisciplinary Planning Team.


2209.13 of 65


98 - Exhibit 07

36 CFR 214 Appeal Rights Language (Refer to Section 94.2)

36 CFR 214 Appeal Rights Language for Grazing Activities

NOTICE WHEN THE DECISION IS APPEALABLE - 36 CFR 214.6

[Include the following language in any document that you issue to a grazing permit holder notifying them of a decision regarding the authorization of grazing or permit suspension and/or cancellations actions where the decision made is appealable under 36 CFR 214.4(a)].

This decision is subject to administrative appeal pursuant to 36 CFR Part 214. Your appeal must be received by the Appeal Deciding Officer within 45 days from the date of the decision at the following address:

Appeal Deciding Officer’s NameMailing Address

In accordance with 36 CFR 214.8, your appeal must include:

1. Your name, mailing address, daytime telephone number, and email address, if any;2. A brief description of the decision being appealed, including the name and title of the

Responsible Official and the date of the decision;3. The title or type and, if applicable, identification number for the written authorization and

the date of application for or issuance of the written authorization, if applicable; 4. A statement of how you are adversely affected by the decision being appealed;5. A statement of the relevant facts underlying the decision being appealed;6. A discussion of issues raised by the decision being appealed, including identification of

any laws, regulations, or policies that were allegedly violated in reaching the decision being appealed;

7. A statement as to whether and how you have attempted to resolve the issues under appeal with the Responsible Official and the date and outcome of those efforts;

8. Any statement of the relief sought;9. Any documents and other information upon which you rely; and10. Your signature and the date.


2209.13 of 65



36 CFR 214 Appeal Rights Language (Refer to Section 94.2)

The following specific requirements also must be included in your appeal, where applicable:

1. A request for oral presentation.2. A request for stay.3. [include the following language in any letter issued to a grazing permit holder

notifying them of a decision to suspend or cancel the permit as authorized by 36 CFR 222.4(a)(2)(i), (ii), (iv),and (v) and (a)(3) through (6)] A request to participate in a state mediation program regarding your term grazing permit dispute as provided by 36 CFR 222, Subpart B.

As the Responsible Official for this decision, I am willing to meet with you to discuss any issues related to the decision. Please contact my office at [address and/or telephone number] if you would like to arrange a meeting.

NOTICE WHEN THE DECISION IS NOT APPEALABLE – 36 CFR 214.5

[Include the following sentence in any document issued to a grazing permit holder notifying them of a decision regarding their grazing permit where the decision made is not appealable]

This decision is not subject to administrative appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 214.


2209.13 of 65


98 - Exhibit 08

Ecological Type Description: The Tonto National Forest (Refer to Section 92.11 and Exhibit 01)

Ecological Type Name: Typic Argiustoll, clayey-skeletal, mixed, superactive, mesic; deep, extremely gravelly sandy loam; PIMOF/JUDE2/QUGR3/BOHI2 –potential natural vegetation

National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units: This ecological type occurs within land type association (LTA) 150. This LTA consists of an evergreen oak woodland occurring on deep, well-developed, well-drained soils with very cobbly sandy loam surface textures. Potential plant community is a QUAR that occurs on elevated plains and hills. This LTA falls within the Mazatzel Mountains Woodlands (313Cd) Subsection of the Tonto Transition Section (313C). The Tonto Transition Section is nested within the Colorado Plateau Semi-desert Province (313) of the Tropical/Subtropical Steppe Division (310). The Tropical/Subtropical Steppe Division is nested within the Dry Domain (300).

Soils & Landform: Typic Argiustoll, clayey-skeletal, mixed, superactive, mesic. This is a brown and dark brown, deep, fine-textured, well-drained soil formed in colluvium from quartzite and alluvium from diabase. Geologic formation is the Troy Quartzite Formation. The surface texture is a very cobbly sandy loam containing approximately 19 percent clay and 45 percent rock, mostly gravel and cobble size material. The diagnostic surface horizon is a mollic epipedon extending from 0 to 27 centimeters. The diagnostic subsurface horizon is an argillic horizon that extends from 5 to 102 centimeters. The control section extends from 5 to 55 centimeters. Soil textures within the control section are very cobbly and very stony clay loams, and very cobbly and extremely cobbly clays. Average clay content of the control section is 43


2209.13 of 65




percent. Average rock fragment content is 51 percent. Soil reaction (pH) throughout the profile is neutral. The soil moisture regime is ustic and the soil temperature regime is mesic. Landform is a surface eroding slope resulting from fluvial geomorphic processes.

Potential Natural Vegetation: PIMOF/JUDE2/QUGR3/BOHI2 - Class. This plant community is characterized by woodland overstory consisting of Pinus monophylla var. fallax, Juniperus deppeana, and Quercus grisea with Quercus emoryi being poorly represented. In mature plant communities, tree canopy cover ranges from 25 to 60 percent. Canopy cover of Juniperus deppeana is typically well represented or is found in abundance. The absence or the occasional presence of Juniperus coahuilensis, Juniperus osteosperma and Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum distinguishes this plant community from similar subseries.

Shrubs are well represented and diverse with canopy covers ranging from 10 to 25 percent. Arctostaphylos pungens, Garrya wrightii and Quercus turbinella dominate the shrub layer. Forbs are diverse, but common ranging in canopy cover from <1 to 2 percent. Graminoids are diverse and range from being well represented to abundant. Canopy covers ranges from 5 to 35 percent. Dominant graminoid species include Bouteloua curtipendula, Bouteloua hirsuta, and Hilaria belangeri. Graminoids such as Bouteloua gracilis, Lycurus setosus, and Muhlenbergia emersleyi are common.


2209.13 of 65




Potential Plant Community: PIMOF/JUDE2/QUGR3/BOHI2.

Trees % cc Shrubs % cc Ht Forbs % cc Ht Graminoids % cc Ht

JUDE2 31.0 AGPA4 0.2 16” ARBA12 T 4” ARIST T 6”

QUEM 3.5 ARPU5 5.0 36” ARLU 0.8 5” BOBA3 T 24”

QUGR3 10.0 CEMO2 1.2 32” CHEIL T 7” BOCU 8.0 28”

PIMOF 10.0 DAWH2 0.3 10” CIRSI 0.1 36” BOGR2 1.0 10”

ECHIN3 T 4” GLCO T 4” BOHI2 10.0 14”

ERWR 0.5 6” HELOA 0.1 14” BRRU2 T 8”

GAWR3 3.5 40” HENA 0.1 6” ELEL5 0.1 20”

GUSA2 T 21” LEPID T 8” ERAGR 0.5 18”

MIACB 0.3 7” PELLA 0.5 4” ERIN P 19”

NOMI 0.5 31” PLANT T 2” HIBE 5.0 11”

OPEN3 1.0 36” SIAN2 T 7” KOMA 0.5 16”

OPSP3 0.5 32” LYSE3 1.0 18”

QUTU2 6.0 40” MUEM 2.0 30”

RHIL 0.8 25” POFE T 14”

RHTR 0.3 20” PIFE 0.5 12”

SPHAE T 10” VUOC 0.1 10”

YUBA P ----

Total CC 54.5 Total CC 20.1 Total CC 1.6 Total CC 28.7

Species No. 4 Species

No. 17 Species No. 11 Species No. 16


2209.13 of 65



2209.13 of 65



Ecological Type Description: The Tonto National Forest(Refer to Section 92.11 and Exhibit 01)

Ground Cover: Ground cover consists of surface rock, litter, cryptogams and basal area of perennial vegetation. The dominant component of ground cover for this ecological type is surface rock. Surface rock (approximately 70 percent cover) includes gravel, cobble, stone and boulder size material. Basal cover of vegetation (approximately 10%) consists mostly of perennial graminoids, shrubs and trees. The litter layer is comprised of dead needles, leaves and down, coarse woody material. The litter layer typically varies in thickness and is discontinuous. However, where litter accumulations are dependent upon forbs or graminoids; the litter layer is absent or is very thin. Litter cover is approximately 15 percent. Bare soil is approximately 5 percent.

Disturbance/Treatment: Fire frequency varies, but ranges from 75 to 150 years. Fire intensity depends upon fuels, moisture and weather conditions at the time of the fire. Droughts are common as well as flash floods during the summer monsoon season. Livestock grazing, fuel wood harvesting, roads, hunting and other dispersed recreation activities are also common disturbances that affect plant communities, ground cover and soils within this ecological type.

Climate: This ecological type occurs within Subsection 313C, and is associated with the mid elevation, woodland-evergreen oak life zone. Subsection 313C averages 202 frost-free days. Temperature regimes are characterized by high diurnal fluctuations, with annual maximum temperature averaging 74.1 degrees F and annual minimum temperature averaging 43.7 degree F. Summer, fall, winter, and spring maximum temperatures average 92.1, 75.5, 56.9, and 71.8 degrees F, respectively. Summer, fall, winter, and spring minimum temperatures average 60.4, 45.2, 29.3, and 40.0 degrees F, respectively. Mean annual precipitation averages 19.6 inches, with 8.7 inches or 45 percent of the annual rainfall falling between April and September (Figure 1). Precipitation is bimodal, with the majority of rainfall occurring before and after the driest months of April, May, and June. Summer moisture occurs during the months of July, August and September (Figure 2). Summer moisture originates primarily from the Gulf of Mexico as summer monsoons, but can also come from the remnants of hurricanes in September.

Abundant cover of Juniperus deppeana combined with absence or the occasional presence of Juniperus coahuilensis, and Juniperus osteosperma indicates that this ecological type occurs within the cool, moist phase (+1) of the woodland-evergreen oak life zone. Well represented, sclerophyllous, evergreen trees and shrubs such as Quercus emoryi, and Quercus grisea and Quercus turbinella are indicators of a mesic soil temperature regime and mild winters.


2209.13 of 65




Figure 1. Proportion of annual rain falling between April and September; Section 313C


2209.13 of 65




Period of Record Monthly Climate SummaryFor the Pleasant Valley Ranger Station, Arizona (026653)

Period of Record: 09/01/1964 to 12/31/2005Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Av MaxAir Temp

(F)54.4 57.9 61.5 68.8 77.6 87.3 90.3 87.7 83.4 74.5 63.0 54.

5 71.7

Av MinAir Temp

(F)21.3 23.5 26.5 30.2 36.6 44.0 54.6 54.3 46.5 35.4 25.8 20.

9 35.0

Av TotalPrecipitat

ion (in)

2.19 2.03 2.28 0.93 0.64 0.34 2.74 3.12 1.90 1.52 1.61 1.97 21.27

Av TotalSnow Fall

(in)0.8 1.3 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 4.3

Av Snow Fall

Depth(in)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 2. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, Pleasant Valley Ranger Station, AZ

90.5 – definitions · web view92.1 – provides more clear direction to...

Documents