Hello again, my name is Kathryn Dyer and I am the BLM Nevada Range Program Lead. My intent is to maximize the usefulness of this article for you all, so please don’t hesitate to give me feedback and ideas at kdyer@blm.gov or 775-861-6647. Do you keep a log of when you move livestock? That’s monitoring! Do you take pictures of site conditions when you visit the site? That’s monitoring! There are also monitoring requirements that likely fit your idea of monitoring better, such as production or utilization, however the most basic methods possible have been chosen to make monitoring as easy as possible while answering the questions that need to be answered to ensure each project is designed to fit the site conditions, and is able to capture the results effectively. In my last article I introduced you all to the Targeted and Prescribed Grazing of Annual Grasses in the Great Basin Ecosystems of Nevada Environmental Assessment (DOI-BLMNV-0000-2019-0003-EA). The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed by Nevada BLM State Director Jon Raby on August 7, which enables the EA to be used as the NEPA analysis for decisions to implement projects that are in line with the purpose and need and which conform with the analysis. One of the main components is the use of a cooperative monitoring plan.
You can find the complete monitoring plan and requirements in Appendix E of the EA at DOI-BLM-NV-0000-2019-0003-EA (https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/ project/124311/510). The appendix begins with the statement “All targeted and prescribed grazing projects would require baseline data collection to establish the project starting point and help ensure the objectives of the project are well defined. In addition, all targeted and prescribed grazing projects would require pre- and post-implementation monitoring. Preimplementation monitoring would occur before each treatment cycle to determine annual conditions and direct treatment design. Short-term post-implementation monitoring would be done immediately after each project completion and long-term post-implementation monitoring would be completed at intervals appropriate to evaluate the achievement of objectives (every 3-5 years).” Basically this means there is monitoring before, during and after each project. When an applicant is working with the BLM office to develop the project, they will work out the details of what each party can contribute to the monitoring, and what they can do together. Anyone who applies to conduct a targeted or prescribed grazing treatment should be ready to do some monitoring!
To determine the current phenology of a site, the following six-class scheme to classify grass plant phenology at the time the targeted or prescribed grazing treatment is applied would be used (Schroeder and Johnson 2019): 1. Vegetative = new spring foliar growth evident; 2. Jointing = from boot, culm elongation, to seed head fully formed; 3. Anthesis = flowering and pollination; 4. Seed Ripe = from seeds firm to dispersal; 5. Dormant/Dead = growth senesced; and 6. Fall regrowth. Phenology should be recorded for invasive annual grasses (i.e., cheatgrass) and for dominant perennial grass species encountered including, but not limited to Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), and crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum). Riparian monitoring is only required in prescribed grazing treatments (since targeted grazing treatments are designed to exclude riparian resources.) Although, riparian monitoring would be conducted on riparian areas inadvertently impacted by targeted grazing treatments with challenges of maintaining livestock locations/temporary fences/etc. Baseline data are only collected once, and future data collected at the same transect is compared to the baseline data. All monitoring components will be collected for baseline data. Pre-implementation monitoring would occur before each treatment cycle to determine conditions and direct treatment design. Monitoring that occurs during treatment will be defined by each individual project and post-implementation monitoring will be done immediately after each project completion. Table 2 summarizes the required riparian monitored components and when each component would be performed. See Appendix E for further details.
One of the monitoring components required in pre-implementation is annual production. It is likely that this would be done collaboratively with both the operator and the BLM to build a common understanding of the conditions on site and the level of treatment needed to reach project objectives. The annual production will then directly inform the treatment design for that cycle. For example, on years with 2,000 pounds per acre production of cheatgrass, there will be a need for a different amount of livestock, perhaps a different size of treatment are, or even a different duration of treatment than on years where there is 1,000 pounds per acre of cheatgrass production. Monitoring required during treatment is largely comprised of just keeping your observations in writing, and documenting the things that you do to keep the project going well. Do you need to go out every other day to haul water to temporary troughs? Keep a journal of when you go out, and what you do and what you see. Documenting all the time and effort that is being put into the success of these projects is incredibly important! Keep general notes of conditions, weather, livestock behavior, etc., each time you go out to the field, and document those with pictures. While doing this, you will be able to keep close track of when the treatment objectives are close to being met and plan for project completion and livestock removal. Also, you will be able to see if things are not working as designed, and modify the project. The following is information from the EA regarding monitoring.
Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring To document actions and to help establish cause and effect relationships when evaluating trend, implementation monitoring should be done periodically. Baseline data are only collected once, and future data collected at the same transect is compared to the baseline data. All monitoring components will be collected for baseline data. Pre-implementation monitoring would occur before each treatment cycle to determine annual conditions and direct treatment design. Monitoring that occurs during treatment would be defined by each individual project. Short-term post-implementation monitoring will be done immediately after each project completion. Long-term effectiveness monitoring should generally be completed at intervals appropriate to evaluate the achievement of objectives (3-5 years). Table 1 summarizes the required monitored components and when each component would be performed. See Appendix E for further details. www.progressiverancher.com
There are end of treatment thresholds defined in the EA, however each individual project has the opportunity create thresholds and responses within the treatment as well, allowing adaptation and adjustment. At the project level, these interim thresholds, and suite of available responses, for project adaptation will be established in the cooperative monitoring agreement and decision based on project objectives. Individual plan development will be reviewed to ensure compliance with NEPA. All thresholds and responses monitoring are directly tied to the treatment objectives, which would define if seasonal re-entry, non-use in other portions of the year, or other treatments would be needed. An example may be a fuel break targeted grazing situation with phased approaches – if concentration of livestock can be accomplished and treatment success can occur with solely water and supplementation distribution, then that’s all that’s needed. If monitoring shows (meets a threshold) that herding or an electric fence is needed (defined response), then that would be implemented.
We are also working closely with Nevada Department of Agriculture to ensure all necessary monitoring methods are available in their smartphone monitoring app, with the intent of making monitoring approachable for everyone. Thank you for the time you took reading this, and I look forward to the next article! Please present this article to your BLM Range Con. when you meet with a BLM staffer with an adverse attitude towards the topics of this column. - Editor
The Progressive Rancher
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2020 9
