MIM and Adaptive Management

PURPOSE of ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT: To achieve long- term desired conditions Emphasis should be placed on long-term monitoring of trend to determine whether resource management objectives are being met or not (U of I Stubble Height Review Team)

What is adaptive management? Adaptive management is an interdisciplinary planning and implementation process that identifies desired riparian conditions, defines criteria for modifying grazing operations when progress towards achieving the desired conditions is not being made, and specifically defines the monitoring strategy and protocols. In other words: "...learning to manage by managing to learn... (Bormann, B.T., P.G. Cunningham, M.H. Brookes, V.W. Manning, and M.W. Collopy Adaptive ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR pages.)

Benefits of Adaptive Management Recognizes uncertainty and uses monitoring to determine whether mitigation measures are cost effective and if predicted impacts occurred. Cost of mitigation measures can be reduced or redirected if a mitigation measure either far exceeds what is necessary to protect the resource or fails to achieve the desired outcome. Helps address incomplete or unavailable information.

The Adaptive Management Cycle

Decision Tree Provides a logical management process for evaluating annual grazing impacts

Implementing Annual Grazing Adaptive Management 1. Was the Annual Indicator standard achieved? (Stubble height, etc.) 4. Review current vs. desired condition and trend. Need for adaptive mgmt change? 5. Assign adaptive action. Was the action implemented? 6. Is failure the result of a design problem or changed condition outside the control of permittee? 7. Is an administrative action warranted? 8. Implement Administrative action 2. Continue current management and monitoring (short- & long-term) to determine if desired condition is being achieved. 3. Change or modify annual indicator and/or management as appropriate. YesNo Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes 1 year 2 years

The Decision Tree Process Recognizes that grazing management to achieve long-term desired conditions is often experimental, requiring an adaptive management approach. Requires managers to analyze the effect of grazing on the achievement of resource conditions Prevents managers from initiating immediate adverse actions when an annual indicator is exceeded Provides for management flexibility since annual indicator standards are modified at any time to ensure that they are working

Adaptive Management Actions - are applied when Monitoring shows management objectives have not been achieved or that trend towards achieving desired conditions is not improving Annual indicators of grazing use or grazing standards are not met. Climatic events, fire, flood or uses and activities detrimentally impact resource conditions and a modification of grazing use is needed to provide for recovery of the site.

Performance measures or impact thresholds that would signal that management adjustments are needed Decision Tree – annual indicator standards Trend on long-term indicators – any negative trend would signal a management adjustment

Elk Creek Scenario 2005 End-of-season stubble height was 5.6 (CAUT) and the annual indicator standard is 6, but streambank alteration was measured at 39% with an annual indicator standard of 20% (Block 1). This level of use has occurred for several years. 1. Was the Annual Indicator standard achieved? (Stubble height, etc.) No for streambank alteration 4. Review current vs. desired condition and trend. Need for adaptive mgt change?

Elk Creek Scenario Current Condition Current Condition Mid-seral ecological status Mid-seral ecological status Low bank stability and cover Low bank stability and cover High stream width, moderately low proportion of hydric stabilizers on the streambanks High stream width, moderately low proportion of hydric stabilizers on the streambanks 4. Review current vs. desired condition and trend. Need for adaptive mgmt change? Yes (Cause: livestock in pasture too long, Significant: Yes since result is failure to meet desired conditions) Desired Condition Desired Condition Late-seral ecological status Late-seral ecological status High bank stability and cover High bank stability and cover Low stream width, high proportion of hydric stabilizers on the streambanks Low stream width, high proportion of hydric stabilizers on the streambanks

2005 Stubble Height = 5.6 Streambank Alt. = 39% Woody Use = 50% Streambank Stability = 35% (low) Streambank Cover = 64% (low) Unvegetated Stream Width = High

In the tool box of corrective actions Closure areas Alternative grazing routes Modifying the annual indicators – the Decision Tree Modify stocking Range improvements Modify deferment and rest periods

Elk Creek Scenario Yes 5. Assign adaptive action. Was the action implemented? Adaptive action is implemented to use 20% streambank alteration as the trigger to move livestock from the pasture (stubble height trigger of 6 is not moving site towards desired conditions). 20% streambank alteration may result in an 8 or 10 stubble height which may be used also if it correlates to SBA. Adaptive action is implemented to use 20% streambank alteration as the trigger to move livestock from the pasture (stubble height trigger of 6 is not moving site towards desired conditions). 20% streambank alteration may result in an 8 or 10 stubble height which may be used also if it correlates to SBA.

Elk Creek Scenario Next years (2006) annual use authorization adds streambank alteration of 20% as an annual indicator standard to be used as a trigger and changes stubble height to 8 or 10 and process repeats. If stubble height and SBA is presented in authorization documents as Annual Indicator standards, no problem… If presented as a rigid numeric standard, administrative modifications are required. 5. Assign adaptive action. Was the action implemented? 1. Was the Annual Indicator standard achieved? (Stubble height, etc.) Yes

How it would work through time – Big Meadow Allotment 250 cow/calf pairs June 1 to September 30

Example Results of monitoring – existing condition (compared to reference): Riparian areas/wetlands (std 2) Wetland rating: 56 (desired 70) Ecological status: 47 (desired 75) Woody regeneration: 25% ss/y (desired 20%) Stream channels/floodplains (std 3) Bank stability 67% (desired 85%) Bank cover 73% (desired 90%) Greenline-greenline width 3.4 m (desired 2.5 m)

What strategy? Riparian Pasture With deferred rotation? 1 2 3

Proposed Action Implement a riparian pasture Year 1 June 1 to July 1 – Pasture 1 July 2 to August 15 – Pasture 2 August 15 to Sept 30 – Pasture 3 Year 2 June 1 to July 1 – Pasture 1 July 2 to August 15 – Pasture 3 August 15 to Sept 30 – Pasture 2

Year 4 Riparian areas/wetlands (std 2) Wetland rating: 55(desired 70) Ecological status: 42 (desired 75) Woody regeneration: 30% ss/y (desired 20%) Stream channels/floodplains (std 3) Bank stability 70% (desired 85%) Bank cover 77% (desirec 90%) Greenline-greenline width 3.2 m (desired 2.5 m)

Not making much progress: the policy Field managers will make reasonable efforts to assist applicants to propose livestock grazing management in their application that will meet the ISRH or begin to make significant progress toward meeting the standards. (BLM – Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health)

Manager decides to follow the ID Team recommendation Change period of use in the riparian pasture, June 1 to June 15

Year 8 Riparian areas/wetlands (std 2) Wetland rating: 65(desired 70) Ecological status: 68 (desired 75) Woody regeneration: 34% ss/y (desired 20%) Stream channels/floodplains (std 3) Bank stability 82% (desired 85%) Bank cover 85% (desirec 90%) Greenline-greenline width 2.8 m (desired 2.5 m)

Conclusions Adaptive Management is a PROCESS Use the Decision Tree to describe the PROCESS Monitoring is required to implement it Some adaptive management actions may require site-specific NEPA (range improvements) Every situation is unique Paradigm shift – prescriptive to goal-oriented management