Priority Setting for WhitebarkPine ConservationMelissa Jenkins

Flathead NF Silviculturist, CCE Hi5 Working Group U.S. Co-Chair, WPEF BOD

Integrative and Adaptive Process

Plans In Development

• Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes

• Crown of the Continent

• National Park Service

Whitebark Pine

Leadership Summit

2017

Jenkins, et al.

2005

Pacific

Northwest

USFS

2008

Greater

Yellowstone

Area

2011

Bureau of Land

Management

20162012

Range-Wide

Strategy

Range-Wide Strategy (2012)

• Strong reference document on WBP status,

threats, and actions needed at six scales

• Entire range equally important regardless

of land ownership and management

policies

• Prioritization focused on restoration need

• Grizzly bear habitat and blister rust levels

were top priorities

Range-Wide Strategy Prioritization Criteria By Spatial Scale

Range

Region

Forest

Landscape

Stand

Tree

Pacific Northwest, USFS (2008)

• Preserving genetic diversity at the

eco-region scale is a unifying

principle

Pacific Northwest, USFS (2008)

• Grizzly bear habitat areas given top priority

• Local experts used forest health and

condition data (recent fires, mpb activity,

blister rust infection levels) to prioritize

stand-level actions within Conservation

Areas

• Prioritization included surveying in stands

where health and condition were unknown

• Acknowledged that funding and feasibility

is a limiting factor

Pacific Northwest, USFS (2008)

• Wilderness Areas or areas with

similar designation excluded

from prioritization process

Greater Yellowstone (2011)

• Prioritization driven by health and

condition of whitebark communities

• Created WBP distribution map with

cover type, size class and % canopy.

Canopy damage from 2000 to 2007.

• Standardized and objective approach

using health and condition data

Greater Yellowstone (2011)

• Protection and restoration actions

prioritized separately

• Criteria used to refine prioritization

include grizzly bear habitat, land

ownership, access and management

policies

• Ranked wilderness as low priority

due to logistical challenges

Bureau of Land Management (2016)

• Adapted health and condition

prioritization approach from GYA

strategy

• Included climate change, distance

from other WBP stands, accessibility,

land management policies, past

disturbance and threatened and

endangered species habitat

• Protection and restoration actions

prioritized separately

Categorized Summary of Prioritization Criteria

Ecosystem Services Provided

Valuable Assets

Likelihood of Success

Risk of Loss

Existing Losses

Opportunity

Feasibility

Priority

Ecosystem Services Provided

Prioritize areas that provide the most important

ecosystem services

• Watershed Protection- stabilize snowpack, regulate

runoff

• Grizzly Bear Habitat- important food source for GB

• Tribal/First Nations Cultural Resources

Valuable Assets

Prioritize protection of existing investments or valuable

ecosystem functions

• Genetic Resources: Seed orchards, elite and plus trees,

high genetic diversity areas, test plantations

• Watersheds with composition and structure that

support midden densities needed by grizzly bears

• Native American traditional use and spiritual sites

• Whitebark pine plantations

• Mature, cone-producing trees/stands

• Recreation sites with whitebark pine

Likelihood of Success

Prioritize areas when restoration efforts are most likely

to be successful over the long term

• WBP likely to persist under future climate

• Elevations where whitebark will

compete well

• Aspect, topography, soils conducive to

survival and growth

• Good distribution/connectivity

• Genetic Refugia- Mahalovich research

Risk of Loss

Prioritize areas that have a moderate/high risk of

whitebark pine loss

• Mountain Pine Beetle- Hazard Rating Mod/High

• Wildfire- Crown Fire Potential High

• Insufficient Age Class Diversity-

12 km

• Low Whitebark BA- < 1000 cones /ha,

Existing Losses

Prioritize areas where whitebark pine has been lost

• Mt pine beetle mortality-

>3-10 trees per acre

• Blister rust mortality- > 50%

• % BR infection- > 75%

• Shade tolerant encroachment-

>50% of the BA

• Ongoing mpb mortality- low priority

Opportunity

Prioritize areas where existing conditions are

conducive to accomplishing restoration objectives

• Recently burned areas- plant

• High elevation recreation sites

including ski areas- education

• High BR mortality areas- promote

regeneration opportunities

Feasibility

Prioritize areas that are the most efficient use of limited

restoration resources

• Reasonable Distance from Road or Trail

• Gentle or Moderate Terrain

• NEPA /Burn Plan Complete

• Funding Available

• Cost versus Benefit

• Land management policies

• Ownership

Questions that we will need to answer

• Are there additional criteria to consider?

• Should we incorporate scale into prioritization?

• Should the criteria be weighted by importance?

• If so, would weights differ by stakeholder?

• Should we leave feasibility criteria out until after all

the other criteria have been evaluated?

• Should protection and restoration actions be

prioritized separately?

Should Prioritize Criteria By Spatial Scale?

Range Wide

Region

Forest

Landscape

Stand

Tree

GB Habitat,

% BR Infection

MPB Mortality, Crown

Fire Potential

Age Class Distribution, Connectivity,

Change From HRV, Loss from Fire

Landscape Structure, GB Habitat Needs,

Management Direction, Planning Stage

Access, MPB Hazard, Successional Status, BA of WBP, Distance to Seed

Cone Production, Blister Rust Resistance

Range Wide Strategy Example

Core Area Scale?

Should the criteria be weighted by importance?Would weights differ by stakeholder?

Prioritization Item Weight Rating Score

Grizzly Bear Habitat 20 1 20

% BR Infection/Mortality 10 2 20

Presence of High Value Assets 20 1 20

MPB Mortality 10 0 0

Loss from Stand Replacing Fire 10 0 0

Future Climate Adaptability 20 1 20

Age Class Distribution 5 2 10

Score (weight x rating) 90

Criteria Definitions

Grizzly Bear Habitat: Yes = 1; No = 0

Blister Rust: % infection > 90% or Mortality >50% = 2, % infection 50-89% or Mortality >25%-49% = 1

High Value Assets Yes = 1, No = 0

MPB Mortality: > 10 tpa = 2, 3-9 tpa = 1, 0-2 tpa = 0

Stand Replacement Fire: Yes = 1, No = 0

Future Climate Adaptability: Above 6800’ elevation = 2, 6200-6799’ = 1, >6200 = 0

Age Class Distribution: >75% in mature = 2, >50% mature = 1, < 49% mature = 0

Core Area

Prioritization-

Broad Scale

Example

Should the criteria be weighted by importance?

PNW Strategy, 2008

Should we leave feasibility criteria out until after

all the other criteria have been evaluated?

Ecosystem Services Provided

Valuable Assets

Likelihood of Success

Risk of Loss

Existing Losses

Opportunity

Feasibility

Priority

Should protection and restoration actions be

prioritized separately?

Stand Damage Agents (Canopy) Protect Restore

No current MPB activity 5 0

Low endemic levels of MPB activity 5 0

Increasing MPB activity 5 0

High epidemic levels of MPB activity 0 5

Low/decreasing MPB activity 0 5

Low to no MPB activity 0 5

WPBR nonexistent or incipient infection (0%–5%) 5 1

WPBR evident with branch cankers and occasional bole canker,

moderate limb mortality

2 3

WPBR extensive mortality (tree or limb) in cone-bearing trees

and reproduction

0 5

Root rot (any species) or twig beetles 3 1

Stand Damage Agent Score 0–25 0–25

BLM Strategy, 2016

More questions that we will need to answer…

• Strictly bottom up effort or should we establish

regional/ agency priorities to inform the core area

prioritization effort?

• Is the “unit” scale the appropriate level to do

prioritization? If so, should all units in an area such as

the GYA at a minimum use the same criteria?

• Should we minimize the # of criteria we consider to

simplify the process? Focus on criteria that most can

get data on?

“The true meaning of life is to plant

trees under whose shade you do not

plan to sit.”

--Nelson Henderson