Common use of Effectiveness Monitoring Clause in Contracts

Effectiveness Monitoring. Effectiveness monitoring, relative to project objectives, answers the question, “Were treatment and restoration projects effective?” This question could be answered on either a regional or a project-level scale. Invasive plant infestations require pre-project inventories to determine how, when, and where treatments are to be applied, and post- treatment monitoring to assess the effectiveness (treatment) in meeting project objectives (e.g. restoring structure and composition of native vegetation). A goal of the Effectiveness Monitoring component in the Regional Invasive Plant Program is to answer the following questions: Have the number of new invasive plant infestations increased or decreased in the Region or at the project level? What changes in distribution, amount and proportion of invasive plant infestations have resulted due to treatment activities in the region or at the project level? Has the infestation size for a targeted invasive plant species been reduced regionally or at the project level? Which treatment methods, separate or in combination, are most successful for specific invasive species? Which treatment methods have not been successful for specific invasive species? The nation-wide NRIS/Terra database, and the upcoming FACTS database, provide common reporting formats to input information and provide a mechanism for addressing the above questions. In addition, current long-term ecological monitoring networks will assist the FS in determining trends of invasive plant infestations at the Regional level. The NRIS/Terra database could be sorted to answer the above questions because it tracks size and species of infestations as well as treatment methods. The Forest Inventory and Analysis Network (FIA) or the Forest Health Monitoring plots associated with the FIA network could be used to follow invasion trends. Such networks could be used to track trends in the spread or reduction in spread of the more dominant invasive plants in the region. Monitoring programs developed at the Forest level would answer more project specific questions. Listed Species - Monitoring that addresses the effectiveness of various measures designed to reduce potential adverse effects from the project, including standards in the EIS, “project design criteria”, “design features”, and “protection measures” may also need to be conducted. This type of monitoring will only be required for a representative sample of invasive plant treatment projects that pose a “high risk” to federally listed species. “High risk” projects are defined as projects with the potential to affect listed species, in the following situations: • Any project involving aerial application of herbicide. • Projects involving the use of heavy equipment or broadcast application of herbicide (e.g. boom spray or backpack spraying that is not limited to spot sprays) that occur in 1) riparian areas (as defined in NWFP, Pacfish, or Infish, as applicable), ditches or water corridors connected to habitat for listed fish; or, 2) proximity to federally listed plants or butterfly habitat. For the purposes of determining the need for protection measure effectiveness monitoring, invasive plant treatment methods that are not considered “high risk” can include, but are not limited to, the following: • Broadcast application of herbicide and use of heavy equipment that occurs outside of, 1) riparian areas, ditches or water corridors connected to water bodies, or, 2) areas in proximity to federally listed plants or butterfly habitat. • Manual methods including hand-pulling, grubbing, stabbing, pruning, cutting, etc. • Mechanical methods using small equipment like chainsaws, or equipment rarely used and not often in proximity to listed fish habitat, like flamers, foamers, hot steam, etc. • Prescribed fire used expressly for invasive plant control and which occurs outside of riparian areas or habitat for federally listed plants or butterflies. • Herbicide applications using spot spray (used with a shield near listed plant locations) with a backpack sprayer, cut ▇▇▇▇▇, injection, wicking wiping, basal bark applications, or other highly selective methods. • ▇▇▇▇▇ uses of fertilizer to encourage native plant competition or growth. • Biological controls used in habitat areas for terrestrial wildlife or fish. Use in proximity to listed plants or butterflies should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. • Broadcast applications (except aerial) using clopyralid, imazapic, and metsulfuron methyl in proximity to habitat for listed fish or listed terrestrial wildlife. A collection of several of these low risk projects in close proximity to each other and in proximity to habitat for listed species may constitute a “high risk” project, but this should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Monitoring for “high risk” invasive plant treatments that may affect ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat should determine if standards and/or protection measures were effective at reducing potential effect pathways (e.g. disturbance, sedimentation, exposure to herbicides) and results should be applicable elsewhere. Unique, individual monitoring efforts and protocols have not provided information that is applicable to other areas or projects. Therefore, a Regional approach is outlined in this framework that will help address the needs for protection measure effectiveness at a broader scale. The regional approach will be developed in consultation with other agencies, including but not limited to National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. For example, Japanese knotweed is a serious invader of riparian areas and has the potential to alter ecosystems upon which listed salmon depend. The Region may have several Japanese knotweed treatment projects over the next several years and each one may have the potential to adversely affect listed salmon or designated critical habitat if adequate measures are not part of the treatment plan or are not complied with during implementation. Designing consistent monitoring protocol will allow a more efficient and effective evaluation of the project protection measures. To meet the objective of being able to evaluate standards and measures applied at the Regional, sub-Regional, and project level for protection of ESA-listed species and/or designated critical habitat in “high risk” projects, an interagency monitoring protocol and In the interim, information obtained from implementation/compliance monitoring reports for “high risk” projects will be reviewed in 2005 and 2006 to inform the development of a consistent monitoring protocol for ensuring that standards and protection measures were effective. This 2-3 year lag time before protocol are developed and effectiveness monitoring is implemented does not apply to aerial application of herbicides. All projects with aerial applied herbicide will include a monitoring plan to assess the effectiveness of measures in protecting ESA-listed species and/or designated critical habitat. Until a Regional, interagency effectiveness monitoring protocol for ESA-listed species and/or designated critical habitat is developed (2007), the need for effectiveness monitoring on “high risk” projects will be evaluated by Level 1 or other interagency technical teams during Section 7 consultation. Recommendations for additional effectiveness monitoring beyond that described in this framework will require that Level 2 or other appropriate interagency management team agree to the recommendations of the technical or Level 1 team for the project. This process will help lead the Region toward efficient and reliable data collection and allow statistical analysis of the data gathered.