march 26, 2010 planning for priority species and vegetation: health assessment a systematic...

March 26, 2010

Planning for Priority Species and Vegetation: Health Assessment

A Systematic Framework to

Plan for Biological Resources

In the BLM’s Land Use Planning Process

2

How does it work?

Species / VegetationHealth

AssessingEffects

MonitoringPlans

DevelopStrategies

SYSTEMATIC FRAMEWORK

BLM LEARNING NETWORKLAND USE PLANNING FOR PRIORITY SPECIES AND VEGETATION

On – Site Training

CORE CONCEPTS

• Develop monitoring framework

• Identify priority species and vegetation

• Assess health

• Identify management strategies

• Assess effects

LAND USE PLANNING FOR PRIORITY SPECIES AND VEGETATION

List of Priority Species and Vegetation


•Accounts for all BLM required species and vegetation•Captures major vegetation types of the planning area•Accounts for species that require special attention•Is not comprehensive, but representative

Matrix forest

3rd order river system

Emergent wetland

Selecting Focal Targets

• Select Priority Species and Vegetation (keep number manageable)

• Start with Ecological Systems (which often include “nested” species)

• Then Screen for Species that have Special Requirements


Group vegetation and species that are related by ecological processes and that co-occur into systems or species assemblages.

Examples:

– Pine Forest Matrix (4 communities/13 species)

– Barrier Island Complex (5 communities/20 species)

– Rare Mainstem/Tributary Fish Assemblage (11 species)

Selecting Focal Conservation Targets


Identify Priority Species and Vegetation

• Greater Sage-Grouse• Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands• Sagebrush Shrublands• Salt Desert Scrub• Lower Montane Riparian• Ponderosa Pine Woodlands• Declining Grassland Birds


Vegetation type

NestedSystems

NestedSpecies

Scientific name Common nameBLM SSS

T & E species

Global rank

SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLANDS

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe

Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland

Amphispiza bellii Sage sparrow G5

Centrocercus minimus Gunnison Sage-grouse X G1

Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl G4

Cryptantha gypsophila Gypsum Valley cat-eye G1

Pediomelum aromaticum Aromatic Scurf Pea X G3

Penstemon breviculus Little penstemon G3

Gambelia wislizenii Longnose Leopard Lizard X G5

Cynomys gunnisonii Gunnison Prairie Dog G5

Puccinellia parishii Parish's Alkali Grass G2

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike G4

Spizella breweri Brewer's sparrow G5


Lumping or Splitting?“Lump” if they meet all of the following tests:

• Co-occur on the landscape• Require similar ecological processes • Have similar health scores, or one can serve as an

indicator for the other• Have similar effects

Examples– Grasslands & grassland nesting birds– Matrix forest & embedded plant community

Therefore may ultimately require similar strategic actions

Selecting Targets


On – Site Training

CORE CONCEPTS

• Develop monitoring framework

• Identify priority species and vegetation

• Assess health

• Identify management strategies

• Assess effects


What is our best estimate of how priority species and vegetation are doing?


HealthHealth of a priority species or vegetation is the measure to which the species or vegetation is…….

Resistant to change in its structure and composition in the face of external effects and

Resilient – able to recover upon experiencing occasional severe disturbance

* Natural Range of Variation*


• To clearly define priority species and vegetation

• Science-based foundation for establishing current status of a priority species or vegetation and setting desired future condition (goals)

• Helps to identify effects on the health of each priority species and vegetation and understand with more precision how these disrupt the priority species or vegetation

• Assists in developing good objectives and focused strategies

• Guides the design of monitoring protocol and measures of success

• Helps identify critical knowledge gaps about the system


Why assess Health?

Aspects of the priority species or vegetation that clearly define or characterize the species or vegetation and determine its distribution and variation over space and time.

Characteristics of the species or vegetation, that if eliminated or significantly altered, would result in the demise of the species or vegetation or would shift it into something quite different.

Parrish et al. Bioscience 2003


Key Ecological Attributes

Size• Species abundance…or• Minimum dynamic area

Size• Species abundance…or• Minimum dynamic area

Condition • Composition (e.g. native vs. nonnative)• Structure (e.g. age class distribution)• Biotic Interactions (e.g. reproduction)

Condition • Composition (e.g. native vs. nonnative)• Structure (e.g. age class distribution)• Biotic Interactions (e.g. reproduction)

Landscape Context • Environmental regimes/processes (e.g. fire)• Connectivity (e.g., access to

habitats/resources; ability to disperse, migrate, re-colonize)

Landscape Context • Environmental regimes/processes (e.g. fire)• Connectivity (e.g., access to

habitats/resources; ability to disperse, migrate, re-colonize)

Key Ecological Attributes


Selecting Key Ecological Attributes Pick factors that are critical for long-term

persistenceo What factors, if degraded, would seriously

jeopardize ability to persist for 100+ years? Look for attributes that may be seriously

degraded by future human-caused activities Look for a small number of really key ecological

attributes (e.g. 3 to 5)o …versus many desirable or descriptive

characteristics Key attributes may be refined over time Attributes are what’s important; indicators are

what you will measure

Pick factors that are critical for long-term persistenceo What factors, if degraded, would seriously

jeopardize ability to persist for 100+ years? Look for attributes that may be seriously

degraded by future human-caused activities Look for a small number of really key ecological

attributes (e.g. 3 to 5)o …versus many desirable or descriptive

characteristics Key attributes may be refined over time Attributes are what’s important; indicators are

what you will measure


Sage Grouse

• Population size • Habitat quality• Habitat connectivity

PJ Woodlands

• Patch size • Species composition• Fire Regime

Assess Health


Establish criteria for condition ratings (key ecological attributes)

Size

Condition

Landscape context

Indicators

Measurable entities used to assess the status and trends of a priority species or vegetation’s Key Ecological Attribute(s).

Indicators should be: biologically relevant (reflect species or vegetation health) socially relevant (recognized by stakeholders) sensitive to anthropogenic stress (reflect threats) anticipatory (early warning) measurable cost-effective (max. information/unit effort)


Current and Desired Condition

Habitat Availability

Population Size

Connectivity of Populations

Cover near leks

Mean # males on leks

Distribution of leks

Indicator

Linkage Between Key Attributes & Indicators

Key Attribute


Very Good: Ecologically

desirable status;

Requires little

intervention for

maintenance

Poor: Restoratio

n increasingly difficult; May result

in extirpatio

n

Fair:outside

acceptable range of

variation; Requires human

intervention

Good:Indicator w/in

acceptable range of

variation; Some intervention required for maintenance


Natural Range of Variation

• When these variations are predominantly influenced by non-human factors (e.g., climate, biotic interactions) the variations can be said to be “natural,”or at least “acceptable.”

• The aim is to manage a priority species or vegetation’s attributes within their acceptable range of variation.

• Native species & vegetation evolved over long periods with natural variation within their environments. Virtually all key attributes vary over time.


Accept uncertainty!

General Guidance:• View main purpose as capturing the current state

of knowledge • Don’t worry about information gaps• Don’t focus on filling out all boxes!• Can return during later planning stages to add

more detail (if necessary)


Assess Health - GROUSE

Type Key Attribute

Indicator Poor Fair Good Very good

Size Population size

Number of displaying males on leks

< 200 birds, (3-yr running average)

200 - 499 birds

500 - 700 birds

> 700 birds

Condition Habitat quality for X sage grouse

Condition of lek habitat

Leks surrounded by <100 acres of high quality habitat and/or water > 5 km

Leks surrounded by >100 acres of high quality habitat and water between 5 - 3.1 km

Leks surrounded by > 100 acres of high quality habitat and water < 3 km


Assess Health – PJ Woodlands

Type Key Attribute


Landscape context

Fire regime Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC)

>50% of the acres in FRCC 3 (signif. altered)

25-50% of the acres in FRCC 3

10-25% of the acres in FRCC 3 and/or >50% in FRCC 2

>50% of the acres in FRCC 1 and <10% in FRCC 3

Condition Species composition/ dominance

Presence of knapweed

Invasives with major potential to alter PJ are >10% cover with patches >1 acre

5-10% cover; patches some patches >1 acre

1-5% cover; few patches >1acre

<1% cover; no patches >1 acre


General guidance• Good/fair threshold is most critical – good

usually defines ecological desired condition• Don’t get stuck on getting the “right”

indicators or values. Fill out, document, and send out for review

• Prioritize filling gaps for key attributes based on:– Level of concern (poor status), or – Link to actions (what BLM will or could do)


Health Assessment - SummaryAn iterative process with “successive

approximations”Begin with a “credible first iteration” Identify 3 - 5 really key ecological attributes for each priority species

or vegetation type Determine what you’ll measure for each attribute -- indicators Complete indicator ratings Focus on the difference between Good & Fair thresholds

Unless you have a Poor rating for an indicator (then focus on Fair/Poor)

Rate the “Current Status” for each attribute Present your initial findings to colleagues/experts for review

Continue to improve over time… Identify attributes, indicators & ratings where your uncertainties

are most vulnerable


Assess Health - GROUSEType Key

AttributeIndicator Poor Fair Good Very good

Size Population size

Number of displaying males on leks

< 200 birds, (3-yr running average)

200 - 499 birds

500 - 700 birds

> 700 birds

Condition Habitat quality for X sage grouse

Condition of lek habitat

Leks surrounded by <100 acres of high quality habitat and/or water > 5 km

Leks surrounded by >100 acres of high quality habitat and water between 5 - 3.1 km

Leks surrounded by > 100 acres of high quality habitat and water < 3 km

CURRENT CONDITION


Type Key Attribute


Landscape context

Fire regime Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC)

>50% of the acres in FRCC 3 (signif. altered)



<10% in FRCC 3

Condition Species composition / dominance

Presence of knapweed

Invasives with major potential to alter PJ are >10% cover with patches >1 acre

5-10% cover; patches some patches >1 acre

1-5% cover; few patches >1acre

<1% cover; no patches >1 acre

CURRENT CONDITION


Assess Health – PJ Woodlands


Priority Species/VegetationLandscape Context Condition Size Health

RankGrade Grade Grade

Greater Sage-Grouse Fair Fair Fair Fair

Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands Good Fair Good Good

Sagebrush Shrublands Fair Poor Good Fair

Ponderosa/ Warm Dry Mixed Conifer Fair Fair Good Fair

Riparian/Aquatic Poor Fair Fair Fair

Semi-desert Shrublands Fair Poor Good Fair

Semi-desert grassland Good Fair Good Good

Mixed Grass Prairie Fair Good Good Good

Project Area Health Rank Fair

Health SummaryCurrent Condition

Overall RatingBy Priority

Species/ Vegetation




Greater Sage-Grouse Fair Good Good Good


Sagebrush Shrublands Fair Good Good Good

Ponderosa/ Warm Dry Mixed Conifer Fair Good Good Good

Riparian/Aquatic Fair Good Fair Fair

Semi-desert Shrublands Fair Good Good Good



Project Area Health Rank Good

Health SummaryDesired Ecological Condition

Overall RatingBy Priority

Species/ Vegetation

‘NO ACTION’ DATASET

HEALTH ASSESSMENT

Use this information to help formulate alternatives

- Evaluate health under current management

- Predict health under No Action Alternative during the life of the plan





Greater Sage-Grouse Fair Fair Fair Fair


Sagebrush Shrublands Fair Poor Good Fair

Ponderosa/ Warm Dry Mixed Conifer Fair Fair Good Fair

Riparian/Aquatic Poor Fair Fair Fair

Semi-desert Shrublands Fair Poor Good Fair



Project Area Health Rank Fair

Health SummaryPrediction under No Action Alternative

Overall Rating By Priority Species/Vegetation

march 26, 2010 planning for priority species and vegetation: health assessment a systematic...

Documents

species assemblages

similar health scores

ecological systems

similar strategic actions

planning areaaccounts

pine forest matrix

special attentionis

blms land use planning