Coos Bay Record of
Decision and Resource Management Plan
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Coos Bay Record of Decision
Coos Bay District Resource
Management Plan Table of Contents:
- Tables
- Figures
- Maps
- Appendices
|
Appendix L. Monitoring Plan
Introduction
The monitoring plan for the RMP is tiered to the
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the SEIS Record of
Decision. Since the SEIS Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
is not yet fully refined, the RMP Monitoring Plan is not
complete. BLM has been, and will continue to be, a full
participant in the development of the SEIS Monitoring and
Evaluation Plan. Ongoing BLM effectiveness and validation
monitoring will continue where relevant to RMP direction
(e.g., stocking surveys, threatened and endangered
species studies, and water quality measurements).
The SEIS and RMP monitoring plans will not identify
all the monitoring the Coos Bay District will do.
Activity and project plans may identify monitoring needs
of their own.
All Land Use Allocations
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
- Protection of SEIS special attention species so
as not to elevate their status to any higher
level of concern.
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are surveys for the species
listed in Appendix C
conducted before ground-disturbing activities
occur? |
2. |
Are protection buffers being
provided for specific rare and locally endemic
species and other species in habitats identified
in the SEIS ROD? |
3. |
Are the sites of amphibians,
mammals, bryophytes, mollusks, vascular plants,
fungi, lichens, and arthropod species listed in Appendix C being
protected? |
4. |
Are the sites of amphibians,
mammals, bryophytes, mollusks, vascular plants,
fungi, lichens, and arthropod species listed in Appendix C being
surveyed as directed in the SEIS ROD? |
5. |
Are high priority sites for
species management being identified? |
6. |
Are general regional surveys
being conducted to acquire additional information
and to determine necessary levels of protection
for arthropods and fungi species that were not
classed as rare and endemic, bryophytes, and
lichens? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
At least 20 percent of all
management actions will be examined prior to
project initiation and re-examined following
project completion, to determine if: surveys are
conducted for species listed in Appendix C, protection
buffers are provided for specific rare and
locally endemic species and other species in
habitats identified in the SEIS ROD, and sites of
species listed in Appendix
C are protected. |
2. |
The Annual Program Summary will
address Implementation Questions 4-6. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are measures taken to protect
the SEIS special attention species effective? |
2. |
Is the forest ecosystem
functioning as a productive and sustainable
ecological unit? |
Monitoring Requirements
Deferred to SEIS Monitoring Plan.
Riparian Reserves
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are watershed
analyses being completed before on-the-ground
actions are initiated in Riparian Reserves? |
2. |
Is the width and
integrity of the Riparian Reserves being
maintained? (For example, did the conditions that
existed before management activities change in
ways that are not in accordance with the SEIS ROD
Standards and Guidelines and RMP management
direction?) |
3. |
What silvicultural
practices are being applied to control stocking,
re-establish and manage stands, and acquire
desired vegetation characteristics needed to
attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives? |
4. |
Are management
activities in Riparian Reserves consistent with
SEIS ROD Standards and Guidelines, RMP management
direction, and Aquatic Conservation Strategy
objectives? |
5. |
Are new structures
and improvements in Riparian Reserves constructed
to minimize the diversion of natural hydrologic
flow paths, reduce the amount of sediment
delivery into the stream, protect fish and
wildlife populations, and accommodate the
100-year flood? |
6. |
A) |
Are all mining structures,
support facilities, and roads located outside the
Riparian Reserves? |
|
B) |
Are those located within the
Riparian Reserves meeting the objectives of the
Aquatic Conservation Strategy? |
|
C) |
Are all solid and sanitary waste
facilities excluded from Riparian Reserves or
located, monitored, and reclaimed in accordance
with SEIS ROD Standards and Guidelines and RMP
management direction? |
7. |
Are new recreation
facilities within the Riparian Reserves designed
to meet, and where practicable, contribute to
Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives? Are
mitigation measures initiated where existing
recreation facilities are not meeting Aquatic
Conservation Strategy objectives? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
The files on each
year's on-the-ground actions will be checked
annually to ensure that watershed analyses were
completed prior to project initiation and to
ensure the concerns identified in the watershed
analysis were addressed in the project's
environmental assessment. |
2. |
At least 20 percent
of management activities within each resource
area will be examined before project initiation
and re-examined following project completion to
determine whether the width and integrity of the
Riparian Reserves were maintained. |
3. |
The Annual Program
Summary will report what silvicultural practices
are being applied to attain Aquatic Conservation
Strategy objectives. |
4. |
At least 20 percent
of the activities that are conducted or
authorized within Riparian Reserves will be
reviewed to identify whether the actions were
consistent with the SEIS ROD Standards and
Guidelines, RMP management direction, and Aquatic
Conservation Strategy objectives. In addition to
reporting the results of this monitoring, the
Annual Program Summary will also summarize the
types of activities that were conducted or
authorized within Riparian Reserves. |
5. |
All new structures
and improvements within a Riparian Reserve will
be monitored during and after construction to
ensure that it was constructed to: minimize the
diversion of natural hydrologic flow paths,
reduce the amount of sediment delivery into the
stream, protect fish and wildlife populations,
and accommodate the 100-year flood. |
6. |
All approved mining
Plans of Operations will be reviewed to determine
if: |
|
A) |
Both a reclamation plan and bond
were required. |
|
B) |
Structures, support facilities
and roads were located outside of Riparian
Reserves, or in compliance with Aquatic
Conservation Strategy objectives if located
inside the Riparian Reserve; and |
|
C) |
If solid and sanitary waste
facilities were excluded from Riparian Reserves
or located, monitored, and reclaimed in
accordance with RMP management direction. |
7. |
The Annual Program
Summary will examine the status of evaluations of
existing recreational facilities inside Riparian
Reserves to ensure that Aquatic Conservation
Strategy objectives are met. The Summary will
also report on the status of the mitigation
measures initiated where the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy objectives cannot be met. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Is the health of Riparian Reserves improving? |
2. |
Are management actions designed
to rehabilitate Riparian Reserves effective? |
Monitoring Requirements
Deferred to SEIS Monitoring Plan.
Late-Successional Reserves
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
- Development and maintenance of a functional,
interacting, late-successional and old-growth
forest ecosystem in Late-Successional Reserves.
- Protection and enhancement of habitat for
late-successional and old-growth forest-related
species including the northern spotted owl and
marbled murrelet.
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
What is the status of the
preparation of assessments and fire plans for
Late-Successional Reserves? |
2. |
What activities were conducted
or authorized within Late-Successional Reserves
and how were they compatible with the objectives
of the Late-Successional Reserve Assessment? Were
the activities consistent with SEIS ROD Standards
and Guidelines, RMP management direction, and
Regional Ecosystem Office review requirements and
the Late-Successional Reserve assessment? |
3. |
What is the status of
development and implementation of plans to
eliminate or control non-native species which
adversely impact late-successional objectives? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
The Annual Program Summary will
address Implementation Questions 1-3. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are forest management activities
(e.g., special forest product harvesting) within
Late-Successional Reserves compatible with the
goal of developing and maintaining a functional,
interacting, late-successional and old-growth
forest ecosystem? |
2. |
Does the harvest of special
forest products have adverse effects on
Late-Successional Reserve objectives? |
3. |
Is a functional, interacting,
late-successional ecosystem maintained where
adequate, and restored where inadequate? |
4. |
Did silvicultural treatments
benefit the creation and maintenance of
late-successional conditions? |
5. |
What is the relationship between
levels of management intervention and the health
and maintenance of late-successional and
old-growth ecosystems? |
Monitoring Requirements
Deferred to SEIS Monitoring Plan.
Matrix
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
- Production of a stable supply of timber and other
forest commodities.
- Maintenance of important ecological functions
such as dispersal of organisms, carryover of some
species from one stand to the next, and
maintenance of ecologically valuable structural
components such as down logs, snags, and large
trees.
- Assurance that forests in the Matrix provide for
connectivity between Late-Successional Reserves.
- Provision of habitat for a variety of organisms
associated with early and late-successional
forests.
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are suitable numbers of snags,
coarse woody debris, and green trees being left
in a manner that meets the needs of species and
provides for ecological function in harvested
areas following timber harvest as called for in
the SEIS ROD Standards and Guidelines and RMP
management direction? |
2. |
Are timber sales being designed
to meet ecosystem goals for the Matrix? |
3. |
Are late-successional stands
being retained in fifth-field watersheds in which
federal forest lands have 15 percent or less
late-successional forest? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
Each year at least 20 percent of
regeneration harvest timber sales in each
resource area will be selected for examination by
pre- and post-harvest (and after site
preparation) inventories to determine snag and
green tree numbers, heights, diameters and
distribution within harvest units. The measure of
distribution of snags and green trees will be the
percent in the upper, middle and lower thirds of
the sale units monitored. Snags and green trees
left following timber harvest activities
(including site preparation for reforestation)
will be compared to those that were marked prior
to harvest. The same timber sales will also be
inventoried pre- and post-harvest to determine if
SEIS ROD and RMP down log retention direction has
been followed.
|
2. |
At least 20 percent of the files
on each year's timber sales will be reviewed
annually to determine if ecosystem goals were
addressed in the silvicultural prescriptions. |
3. |
All proposed regeneration
harvest timber sales in watersheds with less than
15 percent late-successional forest remaining
will be reviewed prior to sale to ensure that a
watershed analysis has been completed. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are stands growing at a rate
that will produce the predicted yields? |
2. |
Are forests in the Matrix
providing for connectivity between
Late-Successional Reserves? |
Monitoring Requirements
Deferred to the SEIS Monitoring Plan.
Air Quality
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
- Attainment of National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, and goals for the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and the Oregon
Visibility Protection and Smoke Management Plan.
- Maintenance and enhancement of air quality and
visibility in a manner consistent with the Clean
Air Act and the State Implementation Plan.
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Were efforts made to minimize
the amount of particulate emissions from
prescribed burns? |
2. |
Are dust abatement measures used
during construction activities and on roads
during BLM timber harvest operations and other
BLM commodity hauling activities? |
3. |
Are conformity determinations
being prepared prior to activities which may:
contribute to a new violation of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, increase the
frequency or severity of an existing violation,
or delay the timely attainment of a standard? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
Each year at least 20 percent of
prescribed burn projects will be randomly
selected for monitoring to assess what efforts
were made to minimize particulate emissions, and
to assess whether the environmental analysis that
preceded the decision to burn addressed the
questions set forth in the SEIS discussion of
Emission Monitoring (pg. 3&4-100). |
2. |
Each year at least 20 percent of
the construction activities and commodity hauling
activities will be monitored to determine if dust
abatement measures were implemented. |
3. |
The Annual Program Summary will
address Implementation Question 3. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
What techniques were the most
effective in minimizing the amount of particulate
emissions from prescribed burns? |
2. |
Are BLM prescribed burns
contributing to intrusions into Class I areas or
nonattainment areas? |
3. |
Of the intrusions that the BLM
is reported to be responsible for, what was the
cause and what can be done to minimize future
occurrences? |
4. |
Are BLM prescribed underburns
causing adverse air quality impacts to rural
communities? |
5. |
Are prescribed fires decreasing
the actual or potential impacts from wildfire
emissions? |
Monitoring Requirements
Deferred to SEIS Monitoring Plan.
Water and Soils
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
- Restoration and maintenance of the ecological
health of watersheds. See Aquatic
Conservation Strategy objectives.
- Compliance with state water quality requirements
to restore and maintain water quality to protect
recognized beneficial uses.
- Improvement and/or maintenance of soil
productivity.
- Reduction of existing road mileage within Key
Watersheds.
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are site-specific Best
Management Practices identified as applicable
during interdisciplinary review carried forward
into project design and execution? |
2. |
What watershed analyses have
been or are being performed? Are watershed
analyses being performed prior to management
activities in Key Watersheds? |
3. |
What is the status of
identification of instream flow needs for the
maintenance of channel conditions, aquatic
habitat, and riparian resources? |
4. |
What watershed restoration
projects are being developed and implemented? |
5. |
What fuel treatment and fire
suppression strategies have been developed to
meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives? |
6. |
What is the status of
development of road or transportation management
plans to meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy
objectives? |
7. |
What is the status of
preparation of criteria and standards which
govern the operation, maintenance, and design for
the construction and reconstruction of roads? |
8. |
What is the status of the
reconstruction of roads and associated drainage
features identified in watershed analysis as
posing a substantial risk? What is the status of
closure or elimination of roads to further
Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives and to
reduce the overall road mileage within Key
Watersheds? If funding is insufficient to
implement road mileage reductions, are
construction and authorizations through
discretionary permits denied to prevent a net
increase in road mileage in Key Watersheds? |
9. |
What is the status of reviews of
ongoing research in Key Watersheds to ensure that
significant risk to the watershed does not exist? |
10. |
What is the status of evaluation
of recreation, interpretive, and user-enhancement
activities/facilities to determine their effects
on the watershed? What is the status of
eliminating or relocating these
activities/facilities when found to be in
conflict with Aquatic Conservation Strategy
objectives? |
11. |
What is the status of
cooperation with other agencies in the
development of watershed-based Research
Management Plans and other cooperative agreements
to meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives?
What is the status of cooperation with other
agencies to identify and eliminate wild ungulate
impacts which are inconsistent with attainment of
Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
Each year at least 20 percent of the timber
sales and other relevant actions stratified by
management category will be randomly selected for
monitoring to determine whether Best Management
Practices (BMPs) were implemented as prescribed.
The selection of management actions to be
monitored will be based on beneficial uses likely
to be impacted, and for which BMPs are being
prescribed. |
2. |
Compliance checks will be completed for all
agreements entered into with providers of
municipal water. |
3. |
The Annual Program Summary will
address Implementation Questions 3-11. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Is the ecosystem function of the watersheds
improving? |
2. |
Are State water quality criteria being met?
When State water quality criteria is met, are the
beneficial uses of riparian areas protected? |
3. |
Are prescribed Best Management
Practices maintaining or restoring water quality
consistent with basin specific State water
quality criteria for protection of specified
beneficial uses? |
Monitoring Requirements
Deferred to SEIS Monitoring Plan.
Wildlife Habitat
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
- Maintenance of biological diversity and ecosystem
health to contribute to healthy wildlife
populations.
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are suitable (diameter, length
and numbers) of snags, coarse woody debris, and
green trees being left in a manner that meets the
needs of species and provides for ecological
functions in harvested areas as called for in the
SEIS ROD Standards and Guidelines and RMP
management direction? |
2. |
Are special habitats being
identified and protected? |
3. |
What is the status of designing
and implementing wildlife habitat restoration
projects? |
4. |
What is the status of designing
and constructing wildlife interpretive and other
user-enhancement facilities? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
Each year at least 20 percent of
regeneration harvest timber sales in each
resource area will be selected for examination by
pre- and post-harvest (and after site
preparation) inventories to determine snag and
green tree numbers, heights, diameters and
distribution within harvest units. The measure of
distribution of snags and green trees will be the
percent in the upper, middle and lower thirds of
the sale units monitored. Snags and green trees
left following timber harvest activities
(including site preparation for reforestation)
will be compared to those that were marked prior
to harvest. The same timber sales will also be
inventoried pre- and post-harvest to determine if
SEIS ROD and RMP down log retention direction has
been followed.
|
2. |
Each year at least 20 percent of
BLM actions within each resource area, on lands
including or near special habitats, will be
examined to determine whether special habitats
were protected. |
3. |
The Annual Program Summary will
address Implementation Questions 3 and 4. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are habitat conditions for
late-successional forest associated species
maintained where adequate and restored where
inadequate? |
2. |
Are the snags, green trees, and
coarse woody debris being left achieving the
habitat necessary to attain the desired
population at a relevant landscape level? |
3. |
Are BLM actions intended to
protect special habitats actually protecting the
habitat? Is the protection of special habitats
helping to protect the species population? |
4. |
What are the effects of
management on species richness (numbers and
diversity)? |
Monitoring Requirements
Deferred to SEIS Monitoring Plan (which will address a
variety of wildlife species such as amphibians, mollusks,
and neotropical migratory birds).
Fish Habitat
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
- See Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives.
- Maintenance or enhancement of the fisheries
potential of streams and other waters, consistent
with BLM's Anadromous Fish Habitat Management
on Public Lands guidance, BLM's Fish and
Wildlife 2000 Plan, the Bring Back the
Natives initiative, and other nationwide
initiatives.
- Rehabilitation and protection of at-risk fish
stocks and their habitat.
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are at-risk fish species and
stocks being identified? |
2. |
Are fish habitat restoration and
enhancement activities being designed and
implemented which contribute to attainment of
Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives? |
3. |
Are potential adverse impacts to
fish habitat and fish stocks being identified? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
The Annual Program Summary will
report on the status of watershed analysis to
identify at-risk fish species and stocks, their
habitat within individual watersheds, and
restoration project needs. |
2. |
The Annual Program Summary will
report on the status of the design and
implementation of fish habitat restoration and
habitat activities. |
3. |
The Annual Program Summary will
report on the status of cooperation with federal,
tribal, and state fish management agencies to
identify and eliminate impacts associated with
poaching, harvest, habitat manipulation, and fish
stocking which threaten the continued existence
and distribution of native fish stocks inhabiting
federal lands. The Summary will also identify any
management activities or fish interpretive and
other user-enhancement facilities which have
detrimental effects on native fish stocks. |
4. |
At least 20 percent of the files
on each year's timber sales and other relevant
actions will be reviewed annually to evaluate
documentation regarding fish species and habitat
and related recommendations and decisions in
light of policy and SEIS ROD Standards and
Guidelines and RMP management direction. If
mitigation was required, review will ascertain
whether such mitigation was incorporated in the
authorization document, and the actions will be
reviewed on the ground after completion to
ascertain whether the mitigation was carried out
as planned. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Is the ecological health of the
aquatic ecosystems recovering or sufficiently
maintained to support stable and well-distributed
populations of fish species and stocks? |
2. |
Is fish habitat in terms of
quantity and quality of rearing pools, coarse
woody debris, water temperature, and width to
depth ratio being maintained or improved as
predicted? |
3. |
Are desired habitat conditions
for listed, sensitive, and at-risk fish stocks
maintained where adequate and restored where
inadequate? |
Monitoring Requirements
Deferred to SEIS Monitoring Plan.
Special Status and SEIS Special Attention Species
Habitat
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
- Protection, management, and conservation of
federal listed and proposed species and their
habitats to achieve their recovery in compliance
with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Bureau
special status species policies.
- Conservation of federal candidate and Bureau
sensitive species and their habitats so as not to
contribute to the need to list and recover the
species.
- Conservation of state listed species and their
habitats to assist the state in achieving
management objectives.
- Maintenance or restoration of community
structure, species composition, and ecological
processes of special status plant and animal
habitat.
- Protection of Bureau assessment species and SEIS
special attention species so as not to elevate
their status to any higher level of concern.
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are special status species being
addressed in deciding whether or not to go
forward with forest management and other actions?
During forest management and other actions that
may disturb special status species, are steps
taken to adequately mitigate disturbances? |
2. |
Are the actions identified in
plans to recover species being implemented in a
timely manner? |
3. |
What coordination with other
agencies has occurred in the management of
special status species? |
4. |
What land acquisitions occurred
or are underway to facilitate the management and
recovery of special status species? |
5. |
What site-specific plans for the
recovery of special status species were, or are
being, developed? |
6. |
What is the status of analysis
which ascertains species requirements or enhances
the recovery or survival of a species? |
7. |
What is the status of efforts to
maintain or restore the community structure,
species composition, and ecological processes of
special status plant and animal habitat? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
Each year at least 20 percent of
all management actions will be selcted for
examination prior to project initiation and
re-examined following project completion to
evaluate documentation regarding special status
species and related recommendations and decisions
in light of ESA requirements, policy, SEIS ROD
Standards and Guidelines, and RMP management
direction. If mitigation was required, review
will ascertain whether such mitigation was
incorporated in the authorization document, and
the actions will be reviewed on the ground after
their completion to ascertain whether the
mitigation was carried out as planned. |
2. |
Review implementation schedule
and actions taken annually to ascertain if the
actions to recover species were carried out as
planned. |
3. |
The Annual Program Summary will
address Implementation Questions 3-7. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are trends for special status
species meeting the objectives of mitigation
and/or conservation actions? |
2. |
Have any federal candidates,
Bureau assessment, or Bureau sensitive species
been elevated to higher levels of concern due to
BLM management? |
3. |
Were desired habitat conditions
for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet
maintained where adequate and restored where
inadequate? |
Monitoring Requirements
Deferred to SEIS Monitoring Plan (which will address a
variety of special status species including marbled
murrelet, bald eagle, northern spotted owl, and
anadromous fish species).
Special Areas
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
- Maintenance, protection, and/or restoration of
the relevant and important values of the special
areas which include: Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACECs), Research Natural
Areas (RNAs), and Environmental Education Areas
(EEAs).
- Provision of recreation uses and environmental
education in several ACECs. Management of uses to
prevent damage to those values that make the area
outstanding.
- Preservation, protection, or restoration of
native species composition and ecological
processes of biological communities in RNAs.
- Provision and maintenance of environmental
education opportunities in EEAs. Management of
uses to minimize disturbances of educational
values.
- Retention of existing Research Natural Areas and
existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
that meet the test for continued designation.
Retention of other special areas. Provision of
new special areas where needed to maintain or
protect important values.
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are BLM actions and BLM
authorized actions/uses near or within special
areas consistent with RMP objectives and
management direction for special areas? |
2. |
What is the status of the
preparation, revision, and implementation of ACEC
management plans? |
3. |
What environmental education and
research initiatives and programs are occurring
in the RNAs and EEAs? |
4. |
Are existing BLM actions and BLM
authorized actions and uses not consistent with
management direction for special areas being
eliminated or relocated? |
5. |
Are actions being identified
which are needed to maintain or restore the
important values of the special areas? Are the
actions being implemented? |
6. |
Are protection buffers being
provided for specific rare and locally endemic
species and other species in habitats identified
in the SEIS ROD? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
Annually, at least 20 percent of
the files on all actions and research proposals
within and adjacent to special areas will be
reviewed to determine whether the possibility of
impacts on ACEC values was considered, and
whether any mitigation identified as important
for maintenance of ACEC values was required. If
mitigation was required, the relevant actions
will be reviewed on the ground, after completion,
to ascertain whether it was actually implemented. |
2. |
The Annual Program Summary will
address Implementation Questions 2-6. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are the implemented management
actions designed to protect the values of the
special areas effective? |
2. |
Are the special areas managed to
restore, or prevent the loss of, outstanding
values and to minimize disturbance? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
Each special area will be
monitored at least every three years to determine
if the values for which it was designated are
being maintained. |
2. |
Each ACEC where proactive
management actions have been implemented will be
monitored annually for the first three years and
after that every three years, or until objectives
are met, to determine if these actions met their
objectives. |
Cultural Resources Including American Indian
Values
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
- Identification of cultural resource localities
for public, scientific, and cultural heritage
purposes.
- Conservation and protection of cultural resource
values for future generations.
- Provision of information on long-term
environmental change and past interactions
between humans and the environment.
- Fulfillment of responsibilities to appropriate
American Indian groups regarding heritage and
religious concerns.
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are cultural resources being
addressed in deciding whether or not to go
forward with forest management and other actions?
During forest management and other actions that
may disturb cultural resources, are steps taken
to adequately mitigate disturbances? |
2. |
What mechanisms have been
developed to describe past landscapes and the
role of humans in shaping those landscapes? |
3. |
What efforts are being made to
work with American Indian groups to accomplish
cultural resource objectives and achieve goals
outlined in existing memoranda of understanding
and to develop additional memoranda as needs
arise? |
4. |
What public education and
interpretive programs were developed to promote
the appreciation of cultural resources? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
At least 20 percent of the files
on each year's timber sales and other relevant
actions (e.g., rights-of-way and instream
structures) will be reviewed annually to evaluate
documentation regarding cultural resources and
American Indian values and decisions in light of
requirements, policy, SEIS ROD Standards and
Guidelines, and RMP management direction. If
mitigation was required, review will ascertain
whether such mitigation was incorporated in the
authorization document, and the actions will be
reviewed on the ground after completion to
ascertain whether the mitigation was carried out
as planned. |
2. |
The Annual Program Summary will
address Implementation Questions 2-4. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are sites of religious and
cultural heritage adequately protected? |
2. |
Do American Indians have access
to, and use of, forest species, resources, and
places important for cultural, subsistence, or
economic reasonsparticularly those
identified in treaties? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
All cultural resource sites
where management and/or mitigation measures are
utilized to protect the resource will be
monitored at least once a year to determine if
the measures were effective. |
The balance is deferred to the SEIS Monitoring Plan.
Visual Resources
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
- Preservation or retention of the existing
character of landscapes on BLM-administered lands
allocated for VRM Class I and II management;
partial retention of the existing character on
lands allocated for VRM Class III management; and
major modification of the existing character of
some lands allocated for VRM Class IV management.
- Continuation of emphasis on management of scenic
resources in selected high-use areas to retain or
preserve scenic quality.
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are visual resource design
features and mitigation methods being followed
during timber sales and other substantial actions
in Class II and III areas? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
Twenty percent of the files for
timber sales and other substantial projects in
VRM Class II or III areas will be reviewed to
ascertain whether relevant design features or
mitigating measures were included. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are timber sales and other major
actions in Class II and Class III areas meeting
or exceeding visual resource management
objectives? |
2. |
Are visual resource management
objectives being met consistently, over long
periods of time, in Class II management areas? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
Each year all timber sales and
other selected projects in VRM Class II areas,
and at least 20 percent of sales or projects in
Class III areas that have special design features
or mitigating measures for visual resource
protection, will be selected for monitoring to
evaluate the effectiveness of the practices used
to conserve visual resources. |
2. |
In VRM Class II management areas
where two or more sales or actions have occurred,
impacts will be monitored at a minimum interval
of five years. |
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
- Protection of the outstandingly remarkable values
(ORVs) of designated components of the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System through the
maintenance and enhancement of the natural
integrity of river-related values.
- Protection of the ORVs of eligible/suitable Wild
and Scenic Rivers and the maintenance or
enhancement of the highest tentative
classification pending resolution of suitability
and/or designation.
- Protection of the natural integrity of
river-related values for the maintenance or
enhancement of the highest tentative
classification determination for rivers found
eligible or studied for suitability.
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are BLM actions and BLM
authorized actions consistent with protection of
the ORVs of designated, suitable, and eligible,
but not studied, rivers? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
Annually, the files on all
actions and research proposals within and
adjacent to Wild and Scenic River corridors will
be reviewed to determine whether the possibility
of impacts on the outstandingly remarkable values
was considered, and whether any mitigation
identified as important for maintenance of the
values was required. If mitigation was required,
the relevant actions will be reviewed on the
ground, after completion, to ascertain whether it
was actually implemented. |
2. |
The Annual Program Summary will
report progress on preparation and revision of
Wild and Scenic River management plans, their
conformance with the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy objectives, and the degree to which
these plans have been implemented. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are the ORVs for which the Wild
and Scenic Rivers were designated being
maintained? |
2. |
Are the ORVs of the rivers which
were found suitable or eligible, but not studied,
protected? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
Each river that was found
suitable or eligible, but was not studied, will
be monitored at least once a year to determine if
the ORVs are being maintained. |
Rural Interface Areas
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
- Consideration of the interests of adjacent and
nearby rural landowners (including residents)
during analysis, planning, and monitoring related
to managed rural interface areas. (These
interests include personal health and safety,
improvements to property, and quality of life.)
- Determination of how landowners might be, or are,
affected by activities on BLM-administered land.
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are design features and
mitigation measures developed and implemented to
avoid/minimize impacts to health, life, property,
and quality of life and to minimize the
possibility of conflicts between private and
federal land management? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
Each year at least 20 percent of
all actions within the identified rural interface
areas will be selected for examination to
determine if special project design features and
mitigation measures were included and implemented
as planned. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are the rural interface area
design features and mitigation measures effective
in minimizing impacts to health, life, and
property? |
Monitoring Requirement
1. |
Each year at least 20 percent of
actions within the identified rural interface
areas which had design features or mitigation
measures will be selected for examination
following completion to assess the effectiveness
of the action. |
Socioeconomic Conditions
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
- Contribution to local, state, national, and
international economies through sustainable use
of BLM-managed lands and resources and use of
innovative contracting and other implementation
strategies.
- Provision of amenities for the enhancement of
communities as places to live and work.
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
What strategies and programs
have been developed, through coordination with
state and local governments, to support local
economies and enhance local communities? |
2. |
Are RMP implementation
strategies being identified that support local
economies? |
3. |
What is the status of planning
and developing amenities (such as recreation and
wildlife viewing facilities) that enhance local
communities? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
The Annual Program Summary will
address Implementation Questions 1-3. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
What level of local employment
is supported by BLM timber sales and forest
management practices? |
2. |
What were O&C and CBWR
payments to counties? |
Monitoring Requirements
Deferred to SEIS Monitoring Plan.
Recreation
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
- Provision of a wide range of developed and
dispersed recreation opportunities that
contribute to meeting projected recreation demand
within the planning area.
- Provision of nonmotorized recreational
opportunities and creation of additional
opportunities consistent with other management
objectives.
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
What is the status of the
development and implementation of recreation
plans? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
The Annual Program Summary will
address Implementation Question 1. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Based on the Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP)
supply and demand data and public comments, is
the range of recreation opportunities on
BLM-administered lands (i.e., roaded versus
unroaded) meeting public needs? |
2. |
Are BLM developed recreation
facilities meeting public needs and expectations,
including facility condition and visitor safety
considerations? |
3. |
Are off-highway vehicle
designations adequate to protect resource values
while providing appropriate motorized vehicle
recreation opportunities? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
Each Special Recreation
Management Area will be monitored at least every
three years to determine if the types of
recreation opportunities being provided are
appropriate. |
2. |
All developed recreation sites
will be monitored annually to determine if
facilities are being properly managed and all
deficiencies documented. |
3. |
All OHV designations will be
reviewed annually to determine if revisions are
necessary to protect resource values and resolve
user conflicts. |
Timber Resources
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
- Provision of a sustained yield of timber and
other forest products.
- Reduction of the risk of stand loss due to fires,
animals, insects, and diseases.
- Provision of salvage harvest for timber killed or
damaged by events such as wildfire, windstorms,
insects, or disease in a manner consistent with
management objectives for other resources.
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
By land-use allocation, how do
timber sale volumes, harvested acres, and the age
and type of regeneration harvest stands compare
to the projections in the SEIS ROD Standards and
Guidelines and RMP management objectives? |
2. |
Were the silvicultural (e.g.,
planting with genetically selected stock,
fertilization, release, and thinning) and forest
health practices anticipated in the calculation
of the expected sale quantity implemented? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
The Annual Program Summary will
report both planned and non-planned volumes sold.
The report will also summarize annual and
cumulative timber sale volumes, acres to be
harvested, and stand ages and types of
regeneration harvest for General Forest
Management Areas and Connectivity/Diversity
Blocks, stratified to identify them individually. |
2. |
An annual district-wide report
will be prepared to determine if the
silvicultural and forest health practices
identified and used in the calculation of the ASQ
were implemented. This report will be summarized
in the Annual Program Summary. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Is reforestation achieving
desired stocking? |
2. |
Are stands growing at a rate
that will produce the predicted yields? |
3. |
Is the long-term health and
productivity of the forest ecosystem being
protected in the Matrix? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
First, third and fifth year
surveys will be used to determine if
reforestation is meeting reforestation
objectives. |
The balance is deferred to the SEIS Monitoring Plan.
Special Forest Products
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
- Production and sale of special forest products
when demand is present and where actions taken
are consistent with primary objectives for the
land use allocation.
- Utilization of the principles of ecosystem
management to guide the management and harvest of
special forest products.
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Is the sustainability and
protection of special forest product resources
ensured prior to selling special forest products? |
2. |
What is the status of the
development and implementation of specific
guidelines for the management of individual
special forest products? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
The Annual Program Summary will
address Implementation Questions 1 and 2. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are special forest products being harvested
at a sustainable level? |
Monitoring Requirements
Deferred to SEIS Monitoring Plan.
Noxious Weeds
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
- Containment and/or reduction of noxious weed
infestations on BLM-administered land using an
integrated pest management approach.
- Avoidance of the introduction or spread of
noxious weed infestations in all areas.
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are noxious weed control methods
compatible with Aquatic Conservation Strategy
objectives? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
Review the files of at least 20
percent of each year's noxious weed control
applications to determine if noxious weed control
methods were compatible with Aquatic Conservation
Strategy objectives. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are management actions
effectively containing or reducing the extent of
noxious weed infestations? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
At least 20 percent of the
noxious weed sites subjected to treatment will be
monitored to determine if the treatment was
effective. |
Fire/Fuels Management
Expected Future Conditions and Outputs
- Provision of the appropriate suppression
responses to wildfires to meet resource
management objectives and to minimize the risk of
large-scale, high intensity wildfires.
- Utilization of prescribed fire to meet resource
management objectives. (This will include, but
not be limited to, fuels management for wildfire
hazard reduction, restoration of desired
vegetation conditions, management of habitat, and
silvicultural treatments.)
- Adherence to smoke management/air quality
standards of the Clean Air Act and State
Implementation Plan standards for prescribed
burning.
Implementation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
What is the status of the
preparation and implementation of fire management
plans for Late Successional Reserves and Adaptive
Management Areas? |
2. |
Have additional analysis and
planning been completed to allow some natural
fires to burn under prescribed conditions? |
3. |
Do wildfire suppression plans
emphasize maintaining late-successional habitat? |
4. |
Are Wildfire Situation Analyses
being prepared for wildfires that escape initial
attack? |
5. |
What is the status of the
interdisciplinary team preparation and
implementation of fuel hazard reduction plans? |
Monitoring Requirements
1. |
The Annual Program Summary will
address Implementation Questions 1-5. |
Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring
Questions
1. |
Are fire suppression strategies,
practices, and activities meeting resource
management objectives and concerns? |
2. |
Are prescribed fires applied in
a manner which retains the amount of coarse woody
debris, snags, and duff at levels determined
through watershed analysis? |
3. |
Are fuel profiles being modified
to lower the potential of fire ignition and rate
of spread and to protect and support land use
allocation objectives by lowering the risk of
high intensity, stand-replacing wildfires? |
Monitoring Requirements
Deferred to the SEIS Monitoring Plan.
|