Policy for Resource Management Plan Effectiveness Monitoring for Renewable Resources with Additional Guidance for Plans Implementing the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
WASHINGTON, DC 20240-0036
http://www.blm.gov
September 1, 2016

In Reply Refer To:

1610 (200) P

EMS TRANSMISSION 09/06/2016

Instruction Memorandum No. 2016-139

Expires: 09/30/2019

To:                   All Assistant Directors, All Field Offices, State Directors, and National Operations Center Director

From:              Deputy Director

Subject:          Policy for Resource Management Plan Effectiveness Monitoring for Renewable Resources with Additional Guidance for Plans Implementing the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy

Program Areas:  All Program Areas

Purpose:  This Instruction Memorandum (IM) provides guidance on the use of terrestrial and aquatic objectives and quantitative data to determine Resource Management Plan (RMP) effectiveness.  Additionally, for RMPs that include Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) habitat, this IM provides guidance for tracking and reporting on the implementation of decisions using the e-Planning tracking database.       

Policy/Action:

RMP Effectiveness Monitoring of Renewable Resources on BLM Lands—Applies to All RMPs

Assessing RMP effectiveness is a component of the land use plan evaluation as described in the Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1).  The effectiveness of BLM RMPs will be determined by the status and trend of the terrestrial and aquatic resources relative to the objectives identified in the plans.  Data to inform the effectiveness of the RMPs will be collected following the Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring (AIM) principles (BLM Technical Note 445) following a rotating panel design.[1]  The data will be collected following the indicators and methods outlined in BLM Technical Note 440 for terrestrial resources and BLM Technical Reference 1735-1 for aquatic resources.  At the end of the panel rotation, the appropriate state and field office leads, in conjunction with the National Operations Center (NOC), will prepare a report on the effectiveness of the field office decisions in meeting the terrestrial and aquatic objectives based upon the status and trend of the specific indicator(s).  If objectives are not met or if the area is not making progress toward meeting the objectives, the field office will conduct a causal factor analysis and whether or not the cause is the result of BLM decisions, the resulting  report should discuss if and how the BLM can work to reduce or eliminate any of the causal factors.

As stated above, AIM indicators values will inform assessment of status and trend of terrestrial and aquatic objectives identified in the RMP.  Supplemental indicators, methods, and sample intensification (Attachment 1) may be needed to determine achievement, or trend toward achievement, of local objectives (i.e., allotments, vegetation treatments, habitats for special status species, etc.) and the effectiveness of implementing management actions for a specific activity.  Qualitative assessments such as Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (TR 1734-6), Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (TR 6710-1), or Proper Functioning Condition (TR 1737-15), should be used to augment the status and trend information and should incorporate AIM indicators and methods to complete the assessments, when possible.  In addition, other partner information that describes terrestrial and aquatic condition can be used to inform the assessment.  Other assessment efforts are not a substitute for the standardized, quantitative data needed to report on the effectiveness of the RMP, however they may serve as an adequate surrogate until adequate data points following the AIM principles have been collected to detect resource changes that would result from management actions within the RMP area.

Additional Requirements for RMP Effectiveness Monitoring of the GRSG Plans

In addition to the RMP effectiveness monitoring described above, BLM field offices with Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Rocky Mountain and Great Basin GRSG Regions and nine Approved Resource Management Plans in the Rocky Mountain GRSG Region (collectively referred to as the GRSG Plans), will use AIM data, methods, data capture, and data management to assess the status and trend of GRSG habitat within a region, state, or habitat management area as defined in the GRSG Plans. The AIM principles and practices are described in the GRSG Habitat Assessment Framework.  Each of the approved GRSG Plans establishes GRSG seasonal habitat objectives that are adjusted based upon site potential and calculated from the AIM data.  Additional indicators may be necessary to complete some of the seasonal habitat assessments and are described in the Habitat Assessment Framework.

The AIM data will also be used to inform the RMP effectiveness indicators described in the GRSG Monitoring Framework (Attachment 2), as appropriate.  The GRSG Monitoring Framework, found in each of the approved GRSG Plans, contains the necessary guidance for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting commitments.  Since many of the monitoring commitments in the GRSG Plans are new commitments for the BLM, the state offices (SOs), field offices (FOs), and the NOC are taking a systematic approach to develop monitoring plans that not only address the reporting requirements, but also simultaneously provide data to inform other management questions.  Please contact your state monitoring coordinator and sage-grouse implementation lead to determine the appropriate data for interim reports until implementation of the monitoring plan is complete.

GRSG Plan Authorization Tracking

This IM directs all affected BLM offices with GRSG Plans, starting on the date this IM is issued, to use ePlanning to track BLM implementation activities, in conformance with existing RMPs, including those associated with the GRSG Plans.  The GRSG Monitoring Framework commits the BLM to track project-level and/or site-specific actions and authorizations within Priority Habitat Management Areas, General Habitat Management Areas, and other sage-grouse designated management areas within each planning area.  BLM SOs will provide an authorization tracking report to the Washington Office (WO) on an annual basis for each FO affected by GRSG Plans within their state.  SOs will also be responsible for submitting a summary report to the Washington Office every five years.  Several BLM states currently use ePlanning to register National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) projects.  Offices unable to use ePlanning to track implementation prior to the date this IM is issued will track these items and subsequently enter them into ePlanning when it becomes available.

The ePlanning database will allow the BLM to consistently enter information regarding individual implementation-level NEPA projects, which can then be used to aggregate information for reporting purposes by a geographical unit, such as a planning area.  For example, using the information from the database, a manager can ascertain how many transmission rights-of-way have been approved in GRSG Priority Habitat Management Areas in a specific planning area.  When the BLM registers a NEPA project into ePlanning, the system directs that information related to the proposed action be used to populate the database.  Instructions on using ePlanning can be found on the ePlanning SharePoint Site.

Timeframe: This IM is effective immediately upon receipt.

Budget Impact: The BLM received funding in Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 to initiate these activities in the highest value habitats.  The BLM anticipates these additional funds will also be received in FY 2017.  BLM SOs, FOs, and the NOC will prioritize monitoring in the highest value habitats annually based on available funds.

Background:

RMP effectiveness monitoring for renewable resources, including GRSG habitat, is required to assess the status and trend of RMP resource condition objectives.  Many species and resources, including GRSG, are broadly distributed across the landscape and cross geopolitical boundaries.  Monitoring that includes quantitative terrestrial and aquatic indicators can provide the basis to evaluate the status and trend of quantifiable RMP objectives, evaluate land health, and determine achievement of Land Health Standards.  Thus, the coordination of monitoring and assessments, where overlap exists, will create efficiencies through the elimination of redundant data collection activities by collecting data once and using it for multiple applications.

The AIM Strategy (IB 2012-080) establishes the rationale and need to adopt terrestrial and aquatic indicators that can be used broadly to ascertain achievement of Land Health Standards, which conform to the Fundamentals of Land Health.  The AIM Strategy also provides a nationally consistent monitoring approach that provides information at multiple scales about resource extent, condition, and trend.  The data collected through AIM implementation provide the opportunity to use quantitative data multiple times for many purposes and provide data that are essential for informed, defensible land management decisions.  The AIM Strategy moves the BLM toward a new paradigm where data are digitally collected, stored in spatially enabled databases, managed in an enterprise architecture environment, and easily shared across the BLM offices, partner agencies and interested publics.

Tracking of project-level and/or site-specific actions and authorizations within Priority Habitat, General Habitat, and other sage-grouse designated management areas will provide managers with the information needed to determine if the decisions in the GRSG Plans are being implemented.  Findings obtained through authorization tracking, together with effectiveness monitoring results, and other research and new information, provide the basis for adaptive management changes to the plan.  The processes of monitoring and adaptive management share the goal of improving effectiveness and permitting a dynamic response to increased knowledge of a changing landscape.

Manual/Handbook Sections Affected: Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1; Rangeland Health Standards Handbook H-4180-1; Special Status Species Management Manual 6840.

Coordination: Preparation of this IM was coordinated with State Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Leads, State Sage-Grouse Monitoring Leads, Deputy State Directors, and the Executive Leadership Team.

Contact: If you have any questions regarding this IM or training for implementing the AIM strategy, please contact Gordon Toevs, Senior Advisor, Sage-Grouse Implementation, at 202-567-1589 or by email at gtoevs@blm.gov.

Signed by:                                                                   Authenticated by:

Steven A. Ellis                                                            Robert M. Williams

Deputy Director                                                          Division of IT Policy and Planning,WO-870

2 Attachments

1- Implementation of Resource Management Plan Effectiveness Monitoring for Renewable Resources (4 pp)

     2- Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework (48 pp)