Resource Implementation Protocol for Rapid Assessment Matrices-Part 1 October 2009 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service October 2009 Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Sparks, Nevada Resource Implementation Protocol for Rapid Assessment Matrices 1- 1 Resource Implementation Protocol for Condition Assessment Matrices-Part 1 October 2009 Resource Implementation Protocol For Rapid Assessment Matrices Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Sparks, NV Cheri Howell Forest Ecologist Wells, NV Rondall Hudson NE Zone Hydrologist Elko, NV Brett Glover Invasives and Noxious Weed Specialist Elko, NV Kelly Amy East Zone Fisheries Biologist Elko, NV 1- 2 Resource Monitoring Protocol for Rapid Assessment Matrices – Part 1 October 2009 PART 1 – PURPOSE, GENERAL DESCRIPTION, KEY AND METHODS PURPOSE page 1-4 BASIC GUIDELINES page 1-4 DICHOTOMOUS KEY page 1-7 GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS OF MATRIX GROUPS page 1-9 METHODS page 1-12 FOCUSING ECOSYSTEM ATTRIBUTES page 1-18 LEVELS OF ASSESSMENT page 1-20 1- 3 Resource Monitoring Protocol for Rapid Assessment Matrices – Part 1 October 2009 Purpose of Matrices The matrices provide an indicator-based assessment of current site condition as compared with a desired condition and the potential to reach the desired condition. Inventory and tracking of site condition is needed to allow management adjustments to be made prior to reaching an ecological threshold. Once an area has crossed a threshold, significant inputs of time and funds will be necessary to bring the site back to desired condition. The cause and effect relationship between any one management practice and the current site condition is not explicitly part of the model. However, certain indicator attributes are more directly and uniquely affected by individual management practices such as grazing, off-road vehicle use or fuels management. If the matrices assessment indicates concerns about current condition, long-term monitoring plots can be established to determine trend. For a holistic approach to landscape scale management it is important to include a variety of indicator attributes in order to assess the relative contributions of different management practices on current site condition. If a site is known to be below desired condition, the timing, intensity, scale and frequency of land uses can be adjusted to respond (Zamudio 2003). Basic Rapid Assessment Guidelines Site Selection - Monitoring plot sites will be located on a pre-determined key area, reference area or benchmark, which will be selected to accommodate the need to assess impacts of a specific management activity. Selected areas are representative indicators of ecological status used to analyze the effects of management actions on larger areas, where sampling the whole habitat type is not feasible. Selected areas are not located in transition zones between plant communities. Depending on the project, one to several areas may be identified. Timing – Monitoring for matrices assessment should be completed prior to land use and/or after land use has occurred for one-time or short-term activities, such as temporary roads or minerals exploration. For land uses that are recurring, such as grazing, monitoring should occur prior to heaviest use period, so that recent use does not interfere with the interpretation of current condition. If repeated at the same location, the study should be completed at the same time of year as the previous study to avoid variability in vegetative production that could skew results. Rapid Assessment and Long-term Monitoring - With large land areas to assess, it is not possible to monitor all sites in detail. The matrices were developed to respond to the desire to have a relatively quick, quantitative, repeatable, assessment protocol containing ecological condition indicators that can be adapted to a long-term monitoring program. Ideally, the matrices assessment can serve as a baseline from which to monitor resource change associated with changes in management on particular sites. Based on initial assessment of site condition, a more extensive long-term monitoring protocol may be warranted to define and detect specific trends. 1- 4 Resource Monitoring Protocol for Rapid Assessment Matrices – Part 1 October 2009 Matrix Development – Matrices were developed for those dominant vegetative cover groups considered as priorities for assessing condition. Additional groups may be written as need arises. Matrix Group Classification - For vegetation classification, the Forest Service uses a dominance type classification system based on existing vegetation. Potential natural vegetation has been used for classification in the past. However, describing the potential natural vegetation is often difficult due to alteration by past land uses and inadequate knowledge of what the vegetation may have been prior to European settlement. The current vegetation is much easier to describe, and natural range of variability for the site can be attained by examining similar sites and the characteristics described for potential natural vegetation. The matrices were written using the vegetation dominance classification system standards described in Grossman and others (1998) and Vegetation Subcommittee - Federal Geographic Data Committee (2002). NatureServe (2002) was utilized to determine at what canopy cover a dominance change could result in a vegetation classification type change. NatureServe (2002) and also in Triepke and others (2005) distinguishes shrub and tree dominated sites by a 10% canopy cover of shrubs or trees. For the matrices, 10% canopy cover was used for shrubs and trees. Ten percent was also used in the creation of the Humbolt-Toiyabe Vegetation Cover Map. While 10% canopy cover fits most sites, it may not reflect sites in early seral or altered states. In absence of least than 10% cover of woody species, an assessment of the potential to have at least 10% cover of trees or shrubs should be completed. Matrix Reference Conditions - Since both existing and reference vegetation change spatially and across time, the matrices were developed with the intent to describe condition features across a range of natural variability. However, it is often not possible or desirable to describe the full range of variability due to human-induced changes, such as a conversion from native to seeded non-native species, or natural occurrences such as fire, where the existing vegetation may be grassland, but the long-term vegetation is shrubland. Thus some of the breaks for “Not Functioning” are not due to condition features, but due to conversions in the dominant vegetation. Matrix Selection - Which matrix group is chosen as a priority for assessing current condition should be based on what sites are likely to be most impacted by a particular land use. It is not necessary to employ all the matrix groups to assess site condition, but only those matrices and those factors within a matrix that are pertinent to assessing the health of that site. The only time one matrix might be selected over another is with meadows. Dry to moist meadows tend to show changes in health before wet meadows within the same riparian complex, therefore if a dry or moist medow is present, it should be assessed rather than a wet meadow. Attributes – The indicator attributes in the matrices have been selected to assess soils, hydrology, vegetation and disturbance parameters. By using multiple attributes, a wider awareness of site conditions can be achieved. While some of the attributes may be more critical for assessing site function, no single attribute should be depended upon to determine site condition. 1- 5 Resource Monitoring Protocol for Rapid Assessment Matrices – Part 1 October 2009 Addressing Special Circumstances - Events that have nothing to do with the land use being assessed are going to happen in key areas. Sites that have been altered by fire, flood or other unplanned events should be documented, and recovery monitored or key area moved until the site recovers. All factors affecting the health of the land that are outside the monitoring goals should always be acknowledged in written notes, so that management can be adapted to deal with them. Randomness - Sampling plots will vary based on the size, shape and roughness of the key area. There are several methods that can be used to increase the randomness of the sampling method, even when the reference area is limited by physical features. All assessment should include attempts to eliminate human bias, and integrating random sampling into the process will help. The book Monitoring and Measuring Plant Populations (Elzinga, Salzer & Willoughby 1998) contains a discussion of random sampling and a random numbers table. Many calculators now have capability to generate random numbers. Sampling Plot Size: The sampling area for the matrices has been adapted for input into the national database (NRIS TERRA) in an effort to facilitate data management and expand the usefulness of collected information. The recommended sampling plot size is .1 acre for most sites. Sampling plots can be flagged on the ground in various square or rectangular formations of 66 square feet or a circle with a radius of 37 feet 3 inches. Long and narrow transect within sample plots tend to incur less human error. However, the shape of the plot will depend on the shape of the community sampled and the methods use to sample. Recording Data: Data gathering methods should be acknowledged and field data and photos need to be identified by monitoring location, date and recorder(s). Records