AIM-monitoring : a component of the BLM assessment, inventory, and monitoring strategy

2012·6.6 MB·English

AIM-Monitoring:
A Component of the
BLM Assessment,
Inventory, and
Monitoring Strategy
December 2012
Table of Contents
High-Quality Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Need for a New Monitoring Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
AIM-Monitoring:
A National, Integrated Monitoring Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Deploying AIM-Monitoring:
A Structured Implementation Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
What to Measure:
Core and Contingent Indicators
of Ecosystem Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Where to Measure:
A Statistically Valid, Scalable Sampling Design . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
How to Measure:
Consistent Methods for Collecting the Indicators . . . . . . . . . 6
How to Measure:
Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Interpreting Measures:
Using Monitoring Data to Determine Land Condition . . . . . 6
Putting AIM-Monitoring into Practice:
National Landscape Monitoring,
Demonstration Areas, and Related Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Integration of Legacy Monitoring Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Monitoring for Adaptive Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Related Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Suggested Citation:
Taylor, J ., G . Toevs, J . Karl, M . Bobo, M . Karl, S . Miller, and
C . Spurrier . 2012 . AIM-Monitoring: A Component of the
BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy . U .S .
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
National Operations Center, Denver, CO .
High-Quality Information use, or policy actions, necessitates consistent data
that can serve many monitoring objectives and
High-quality information on the status, condition, and trend
can be aggregated for use across multiple scales
of natural resources is essential for making sound land
management decisions. The Bureau of Land Management of management (from field to national levels) .
(BLM) collects this information through an array of resource Given capacity constraints and the sheer number
assessment, inventory, and monitoring efforts that support of monitoring needs, it is no longer possible to
the bureau’s diverse, multiple-use land management needs. implement individual monitoring and assessment
plans for each identified threat or use .
All management levels of the BLM rely on monitoring
data to derive essential resource information. At the field
AIM-Monitoring: A National,
level, monitoring information is used in developing land
use and activity plans and for designing and assessing Integrated Monitoring Approach
virtually all resource management projects (e.g., vegetation
The “BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring
treatments, fire recovery efforts, livestock grazing, energy
Strategy for Integrated Renewable Resources
development and extraction, recreation activities, etc.). At
Management” (AIM Strategy) was completed in
the regional level, monitoring information is used to detect
2011 in response to a request from the Office
landscape-scale resource status and trend and to help
of Management and Budget . The strategy
focus and coordinate field management efforts within and
describes an approach for integrated, cross-
across jurisdictional boundaries. Monitoring information is
program assessment, inventory, and monitoring
also used at the national level to report on overall resource
of renewable resources (e .g ., vegetation, soils,
status, condition, and trend and to direct management
water, and wildlife habitat) at multiple scales of
capacity where it’s most needed.
management . Following the AIM Strategy, the BLM
is modernizing its resource monitoring approach
The Need for a to more efficiently and effectively meet local,
regional, and national resource information needs .
New Monitoring Approach
The AIM Strategy provides a process for the BLM
BLM monitoring efforts have historically been
to collect quantitative information on the status,
developed to meet specific project and program
condition, trend, amount, location, and spatial
objectives at the field level . However, because
pattern of renewable resources on the nation’s
individual monitoring efforts were developed at
public lands, from individual field office levels, to
different times for varied purposes, they commonly
public lands across the Western U .S . and Alaska .
did not share standard approaches . As a result,
Each AIM-Monitoring survey, at any scale of inquiry,
even when current monitoring efforts fulfill local
uses a set of core indicators, standardized field
management or program-specific needs, much
methods, remote sensing, and a statistically valid
of the information cannot be readily compared
study design to provide nationally consistent
through time, across management areas, combined
and scientifically defensible information to track
with monitoring data from different programs,
changes on public lands over time .
or aggregated to provide regional or national
perspectives on resource status, condition, and
AIM-Monitoring consists of
trend or management effectiveness . In other cases,
five primary elements:
current monitoring efforts are not fulfilling the full
• A structured implementation framework (see
range of management needs or not doing so as
Figure 1) built on management questions and
effectively as possible .
conceptual models of ecosystem structure and
function;
The rate of change and the amount of use on public
lands are at unprecedented levels . Deriving the • A standard set of core and contingent
knowledge of how ecosystems are changing, which quantitative indicators and methods that can be
is necessary to guide and justify management, supplemented for locally specific needs;
AIM-Monitoring: A Component of the BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy 1
Figure 1. AIM-Monitoring implementation framework
2 AIM-Monitoring: A Component of the BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy
• A statistically valid, scalable sampling design; 5 . Generate quantitative and spatial data that are
necessary to defensibly determine if management
• Integration of remote sensing monitoring
actions (e .g ., land treatments) are moving
technologies; and
resources toward desired states, conditions, or
• Electronic, onsite data capture and centralized specific resource objectives identified in planning
data management . or related documents or legal mandates .
A fundamental tenet for AIM-Monitoring is that
information can be collected once and used many
Deploying AIM-Monitoring:
times for many reasons across many programs (e .g .,
A Structured Implementation
recreation, grazing, energy, wildlife, and wild horse
and burro management) . Further, these data can be Framework
easily compared and combined to simultaneously Deploying AIM-Monitoring means engaging
address a wide range of local, regional, and national in a process (hereafter referred to as the
(i .e ., multiscale) management needs . All AIM- implementation framework) to develop a
Monitoring deployments are intended to achieve monitoring plan designed to meet resource
five goals determined to be important to land information needs . The AIM-Monitoring
managers, from field to national levels . implementation framework (see Figure 1)
consists of nine primary and iterative steps . The
The five goals of each
implementation framework begins by defining
AIM-Monitoring deployment include:
management questions, identifying key ecological
1 . Determine the status, condition, and trend
components and processes of the system to be
of priority resources and key ecosystem
managed, and developing ecosystem conceptual
components and processes .
models (see Figure 2) . By combining management
2 . Determine the location, amount, and spatial needs with the processes critical to functioning
pattern of priority resources, key ecosystem ecosystems, monitoring objectives can be defined .
components and processes, disturbances, and Relevant monitoring efforts and scientific literature
other changes on the landscape . are reviewed and incorporated into the process .
Various approaches and rules for data collection
3 . Provide a conceptual understanding of
are defined . The implementation steps are
key ecosystem components, processes,
documented in an approved monitoring plan and
and sustainability concepts that should be
data collection begins . Once collected, data are
incorporated into land use plans, National
managed and analyzed within the BLM’s national
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents,
geospatial infrastructure, where they can contribute
cumulative effects analyses, etc .
to management decisionmaking, determinations
4 . Generate quantitative and spatial data to of management effectiveness, and local, regional,
address goals 1 and 2 and to contribute to and national reporting efforts . Collectively, AIM-
existing land health assessment and evaluation Monitoring information provides a basis for
processes at multiple scales of inquiry . land managers to adaptively manage resources,
AIM-Monitoring: A Component of the BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy 3
Figure 2. A conceptual ecosystem model depicting ecosystem drivers/change agents (rounded corners), key ecosystem
components (rectangles), within-component interactions and processes (brackets), and between-component interactions
and processes (arrows) for the North Slope of Alaska. This peer-reviewed conceptual model was developed in conjunction
with the Alaska Natural Heritage Program to support an AIM-Monitoring deployment in the National Petroleum Reserve-
Alaska. Development of conceptual ecosystem models is a critical step of “understanding the system,” which is step number
two in the AIM-Monitoring implementation framework (see Figure 1).
4 AIM-Monitoring: A Component of the BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy
improve understanding of the ecosystem, and The field-based core and contingent terrestrial
adjust monitoring efforts as necessary using a well- indicators were selected following a review of
documented and consistent approach . BLM monitoring efforts nationwide, interagency
input, and a conceptual ecosystem modeling
process based on three key attributes of ecosystem
What to Measure: Core and
sustainability (including biotic integrity, site/
Contingent Indicators soil stability, and hydrologic function) . The
importance of spatial landscape characteristics to
of Ecosystem Sustainability
ecosystem sustainability has led to the addition of
Healthy, sustainable ecosystems support the
a fourth key attribute, landscape integrity . These
diverse multiple uses of public lands . The AIM
four key attributes, along with their associated
Strategy monitoring component has identified
terrestrial and aquatic core indicators, will
broadly applicable (i .e ., cross program, cross scale,
always be measured when an AIM-Monitoring
and cross ecosystem), field-based quantitative
design is deployed, regardless of the program or
monitoring measurements called core and
management area where monitoring data are being
contingent indicators of terrestrial ecosystem
collected . Lastly, contingent and/or supplemental
sustainability (see Table 1) . These core terrestrial
indicators are measured when necessary to address
indicators provide information needed to
specific local, regional, or national resource needs
understand the status, condition, and trend of
or objectives .
terrestrial ecosystems managed by the BLM . Efforts
are currently underway to add several remote
sensing-based core indicators and methods to
Where to Measure: A Statistically
support mapping and monitoring of landcover
and wildlife habitat . Efforts are also underway to Valid, Scalable Sampling Design
select core and contingent indicators of aquatic AIM-Monitoring indicators and methods are
ecosystem sustainability, which will be introduced designed to be “scalable .” A scalable monitoring
in a future BLM technical note . design allows information to be collected by
local resource managers to meet local
Table 1. Core and contingent terrestrial indicators and monitoring methods management needs and to be combined
with data collected elsewhere to address
TYPE INDICATOR METHOD WHERE APPLIED?
broader, landscape-scale, and national
Core Amount of bare ground Line-point intercept (LPI) for All terrestrial
Vegetation composition foliar cover, supplemented ecosystems reporting needs . Scalability requires not
Nonnative invasive species with plot-level species managed by the only consistent indicators and methods,
Plant species of management inventory BLM but also a statistically valid sample
concern design . A statistically valid sample
Vegetation height Height at selected LPI points design, in the context of AIM-Monitoring,
Proportion of site in large, Canopy gap intercept means that the management/study area
intercanopy gaps for monitoring is explicitly defined (e .g .,
* Landcover (habitat) amount, Remote sensing acquisition a recreation area or stream segment),
location, and pattern and spatial pattern metrics
sample locations are randomly selected
* Aquatic indicators
within meaningful sampling strata (e .g .,
Contingent Soil and site stability When necessary
ecological sites), and that every location
Soil toxins
within the management/study area has
*Others (e.g., stand density index,
at least some chance of being sampled .
wildlife metrics, etc.)
* In development
AIM-Monitoring: A Component of the BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy 5
How to Measure: providing the location, amount, and spatial pattern
of resources and the status, condition, and trend of
Consistent Methods for
these resource attributes across broad geographic
Collecting the Indicators
extents .
Resource monitoring information is most
valuable when it is collected repeatedly in a By taking advantage of recent advances in remote
consistent manner over long periods of time . sensing science, traditional field-only renewable
This is a challenging goal because many resource resource measures (consistent with the AIM core
professionals in diverse locations conduct indicators) can be collected using very-high-
resource monitoring using different methods over resolution, 3-dimensional remote sensing imagery .
different lengths of time . To accomplish long- By optimizing the integration of field and remote
term consistency and scalability of results, AIM- efforts, field personnel will reduce the number of
Monitoring establishes standardized methods for field samples needed to detect resource changes,
collecting data necessary to derive the core and focus data collection efforts in areas experiencing
contingent indicators of ecosystem sustainability . high levels of change, and collect data in isolated
These core and contingent monitoring methods locations that are difficult to access . Further,
(see Table 1) were selected because they are integrating field and remote sensing efforts will
objective, repeatable with minimal observer bias, reduce costs, improve the BLM’s ability to monitor
easy to implement, well documented, and widely large and diverse landscapes, and detect landscape
used . Further, these methods reflect the knowledge changes (e .g ., disturbance and climate effects) at
and experience of scientists, rangeland managers, multiple scales .
and ecologists from many different agencies and
institutions .
Interpreting Measures: Using
Monitoring Data to Determine
How to Measure: Remote Sensing Land Condition
Remote sensing refers to the acquisition of resource Interpreting the status, departure, or rate of change
data collected by any device (e .g ., satellites or low- of renewable resources to determine condition
flying aircraft) not in direct contact with the object requires comparison of data collected via field
of interest . The AIM Strategy and AIM-Monitoring sampling and/or remote sensing against indicators
emphasize the importance of using remote sensing of ecological attributes for reference conditions .
as a monitoring tool to improve monitoring These reference conditions must be based on site
efficiency . Field-only data provide precise, or landscape potential .
statistically valid measures of resource status and
trend through time . Additionally, field data provide Ecological site descriptions (ESDs) describe the
a valuable source of data to “train” and validate potential of a site to support different types and
remote sensing products . In turn, remote sensing amounts of vegetation, determined by factors like
data can extend the utility of some field data by soils, climate, and landform . Ecological sites react
6 AIM-Monitoring: A Component of the BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy
to factors like disturbance or degradation (historic three primary functions . The first function is to
or current), which can lead to alternative stable provide regional-scale, statistically valid estimates
plant communities outside the historic potential of terrestrial/upland rangeland resource status,
of the site . Elements of an ESD that are helpful for condition, and trend to provide valuable reference
defining reference conditions and interpreting conditions for local decisionmaking . The second
departure from reference conditions include: function is to provide a framework upon which
state-and-transition conceptual models of plant all locally driven monitoring efforts can be tied,
community changes in response to disturbance ensuring all BLM-managed lands are covered by
or management; descriptions of the range of a monitoring program . The third function is to
plant communities that could exist on the site in provide consistent data necessary to improve
addition to the potential vegetation; descriptions of the accuracy of national landcover/vegetation
anthropogenic and natural disturbances and their mapping, which will increase the utility of this
potential to cause changes in plant communities; mapping for local vegetation management,
descriptions of dynamic soil properties (e .g ., planning, and decisionmaking .
organic matter content, soil aggregate stability),
and soil cover (e .g ., bare ground) . The broad applicability and cross-program utility of
the AIM-Monitoring core indicators and methods
ESDs are the basic units for stratifying landscapes allow for relatively rapid deployment to meet
for site-level AIM-Monitoring efforts and are also emerging management needs . Such is the case
fundamental for most terrestrial upland land health with the BLM’s management of greater sage-
standards and land health evaluations in the BLM . grouse habitats . Working in conjunction with the
While ESDs are the foundation upon which AIM- NRCS, the BLM is increasing the sampling density
Monitoring data are evaluated, efforts are currently of the LMF across the range of the greater sage-
underway to determine methods for describing grouse to increase our understanding of the status,
current and reference resource conditions based condition, and trend of these habitats . Importantly,
on land potential at broader scales using a collection of these habitat-specific AIM-Monitoring
combination of field and remote sensing data . data is being driven by sage-grouse management
questions, but these data are not limited to sage-
grouse use in the future . These same data can be
Putting AIM-Monitoring into used for other wildlife habitat questions and also
Practice: National Landscape for recreation, grazing, and climate change effects,
to name a few .
Monitoring, Demonstration Areas,
and Related Projects
Several field-level deployments of AIM-Monitoring
Using the AIM-Monitoring core indicators and for both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems are
methods, in cooperation with the U .S . Department underway (see Figure 3) . These projects include
of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources energy, grazing, sage-grouse, wild horse and
Conservation Service (NRCS), the BLM deployed burro, postfire restoration, and National Landscape
the first year of its Westside Landscape Monitoring Conservation System (NLCS) management areas
Framework (LMF) in 2011 . The LMF is a low-intensity in multiple states . AIM-Monitoring is also being
sampling effort, collecting approximately 1,000 implemented on landscape-scale projects in
sample plots per year across BLM-managed public Nevada and Alaska to address specific management
lands . (The LMF is limited to nonforested public needs, to validate that the core indicators are
lands because the U .S . Forest Service’s Forest applicable to all ecosystems managed by the
Inventory and Analysis program provides resource BLM, and to ensure that site-level monitoring
information of all forested lands regardless of information can be readily combined to address
ownership or management agency .) The LMF has management questions at broader scales .
AIM-Monitoring: A Component of the BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy 7
Figure 3. AIM demonstration areas, pilot and related projects – 2012
8 AIM-Monitoring: A Component of the BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy