Project Update SageCon, September 30, 2016

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable Development and Evolution of the Criteria and Indicators.
Advertisements

Rangeland Health United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management.
A forum for coordinating state, federal, and tribal watershed and salmon monitoring programs in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring.
DRAFT Wildlife Program Amendments Joint Technical Committees and Members Advisory Group Amendment Strategy Workshop July 23, 2007.
Wildlife Inventory and Habitat Evaluation of Duck Valley Indian Reservation Project #32008 Shoshone-Paiute Tribes.
Great Basin Restoration Initiative GBRI Field Office to On-the Ground Project.
Division of State Lands’ Wetlands Program. Issues That Spawned State Wetlands Program (SB 3) Lack of detailed wetlands inventory information or guidance.
FIELD METHODS Strategy for Monitoring Post-fire Rehabilitation Treatments Troy Wirth and David Pyke USGS – Biological Resources Division Forest and Rangeland.
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon Rules Amendment s.
Bureau of Land Management NAIP Information Meeting July 19 th, 2006.
WLCI Update July 23, 2010 Conserving World-class Wildlife Resources Facilitating Responsible Development.
Information Needs National Forest System Update 2011 FIA User Group Meeting – Sacramento, CA March 9, 2011 Greg Kujawa NFS, Washington Office.
Watershed Management Framework Mission of watershed management –Coordinate and integrate the programs, tools, and resources of multiple stakeholder groups.
2 Recognized by John C. Fremont as an area of interior drainage 145,546 square miles Precipitation, generally 7-12 inches annually Recognized by John.
Oregon’s Sage-grouse Action Plan Fire and invasives With more frequent and larger fires, and juniper continuing to expand, sage-grouse are dependent on.
Forest Plan Revision Using the 2012 Planning Rule Process Overview Steps and Expectations (I don’t know….but I’ve been told…if the horse don’t pull….you.
Range Practices 1 Objectives and Range Practices under FRPA & Objectives & Objectives The Focus is on Results.
Most Common Conservation Practices Forestry Illinois.
Great Basin: Wildfires, Invasive Species, & Climate Change Mike Pellant Great Basin Restoration Initiative Coordinator Boise, ID Cheatgrass.
Great Basin Environmental Program Update January 15, 2013 Stan Johnson, College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources, UNR.
Schmidt et al GTR RMRS-87.
Measuring Habitat and Biodiversity Outcomes Sara Vickerman and Frank Casey September 26, 2013 Defenders of Wildlife.
NRCS Ecological Site Handbook Webinar April 16, 2013 Susan Andrews, National Leader Soil Quality and Ecosystems Branch National Soil Survey Center and.
Rangeland Health Assessment and Monitoring (Framework for Ecological Site-Based Assessment and Monitoring in Mongolia) 7 July 2007 Ulan Bator, Mongolia.
Methods and Tools to Integrate Biodiversity into Land Use Planning
Land Treatment and the Conservation Planning Process CNMP Core Curriculum Section 3 — Land Treatment Practices.
Cheatgrass Management Plan for NM. MANAGEMENT PLAN OUTLINE INTRODUCTION MISSION STATEMENT – GOAL SCOPE OF THE CHEATGRASS PROBLEM POLICY AND DIRECTION.
Watershed Assessment and Planning. Review Watershed Hydrology Watershed Hydrology Watershed Characteristics and Processes Watershed Characteristics and.
APPLYING CONSERVATION TO THE TEXAS LANDSCAPE Norman Bade, NRCS State Resource Conservationist Conservation Provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill (Farm Security.
STRATIFICATION PLOT PLACEMENT CONTROLS Strategy for Monitoring Post-fire Rehabilitation Treatments Troy Wirth and David Pyke USGS – Biological Resources.
Inventory and Monitoring Terrestrial Fauna Inventory and Monitoring Terrestrial Fauna Linking Field Activities to Budget Processes.
March 11, 2010 Planning for Priority Species and Vegetation: Strategy Development A Systematic Framework to Plan for Biological Resources In the BLM’s.
Translation to the New TCO Panel Beverly Law Prof. Global Change Forest Science Science Chair, AmeriFlux Network Oregon State University.
Schools Property Planning Competition 2013 “Waitara”
March 11, 2010 Planning for Priority Species and Vegetation: Monitoring Framework A Systematic Framework to Plan for Biological Resources In the BLM’s.
Transitions in Rangeland Evaluations David A. Pyke & Jeffrey E. Herrick Jornada Experimental Range Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center.
Wildlife Program Amendments CBFWA Members Meeting – Sept
On – Site Training Overview LAND USE PLANNING FOR PRIORITY SPECIES AND VEGETATION March 11, 2010.
1 What this Broadcast Will Cover Day One Indicators and Attributes Changes from Version 3 to Version 4 Ecological Sites, State and Transition Models, and.
Program Implementation Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program.
Utah’s Watershed Restoration Initiative Mule Deer.
CALIFORNIA'S STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN 2015 UPDATE A Conservation Legacy for Californians Armand Gonzales, Project Lead.
BLM’s Landscape Approach REAs and Related Landscape Initiatives Karen Prentice, BLM, Healthy Landscapes Coordinator, Gordon.
Greater Sage-Grouse and BLM’s Nevada/Northeastern California Record of Decision and Approved Plan Amendment History and Overview.
George Peacock, Team Leader Grazing Lands Technology Development Team Central National Technology Support Center 2010 Southern Regional Cooperative Soil.
Agriculture has an important role Well-managed livestock grazing and other traditional ranching practices are not considered major threats to sage-grouse.
Wildlife Program Amendments Joint Technical Committees and Members Advisory Group Amendment Strategy Workshop.
BLM The Steppe Forward Series BLM Into the Brush: The Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plans Implementation Guide.
4FRI Biophysical Monitoring Indicators: Assigning Metrics of Success (or Failure) 4FRI Landscape Strategy & Science and Monitoring Working Groups –
SAGE GROUSE INITIATIVE OREGON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY USDA – NRCS – Oregon.
USING STEWARDSHIP AUTHORITY TO ADVANCE RESTORATION Mae Lee Hafer Regional Stewardship Coordinator Collaborative Restoration.
Rangeland NRI: 2002 and Beyond Presentation given to NRCS State Conservationists NRI Exec. Committee Northwest Watershed Research Center, Boise.
BLM Standards & Guidelines
Matthew Casali and Robert Fahey
Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy
Irvine Ranch Conservancy Monitoring on the IRNL
What is water Erosion..
AIM-NAMF Project Evolution
WIP Regional Meetings Jason Keppler
Grazing Management and Fire
Uses and Guidance BLM Evaluate status of Standards for Rangeland Health Guidance provided in Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No In BLM.
Landscape Approach to Resource Management
Wildlife Program Amendments CBFWA Members Meeting – Sept
Introduction to USA-NPN and Nature’s Notebook
Grazing Systems REM Integrated Rangeland Management
AFIX Standards: a new programmatic tool
Monitoring for Adaptive Management BLM’s National Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy Part information, part soapbox, part sales pitch Photo:
Grazing Systems REM Integrated Rangeland Management
Grazing & Recovery after Fire
Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR)
Presentation transcript:

Project Update SageCon, September 30, 2016 Pilot Use of Oregon State and Transition Model Framework with BLM Land Health Evaluation in Oregon Project Update SageCon, September 30, 2016

Background Pilot initiated in March 2016 Purpose: Goal: Partners: Explore the applicability and utility of incorporating the Oregon STM Framework into a BLM Rangeland Health Assessment and Evaluation Incorporate the data requirements in the GRSG Monitoring Framework Goal: Assist the BLM in clearly communicating the desired rangeland condition, ecological threats, and threat reduction measures necessary to sustain or achieve desired conditions. Partners: BLM, USFWS, ODFW, Eastern Oregon ARS

State and Transition Model Framework The Oregon State and Transition Model Framework (STM) assesses the sagebrush steppe landscape and stratifies it based on the dominant vegetation community and the degree of threat from wildfire, invasive annual grasses (IAG) and conifer encroachment (Boyd et al. 2014; US Department of Agriculture 2016). Using the STM approach, the ecological state for an area is determined by a combination of: (1) conducting ocular assessments while walking and driving throughout the assessment area; (2) establishing permanent photo points; (3) assessing apparent trend. The Oregon STM framework used in this demonstration is conducted on private lands that are enrolled in any of the Programmatic Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAA) throughout occupied sage-grouse habitat in southeastern Oregon (USFWS 2015). It is also used in the Candidate Conservation Agreements (CCA)(BLM 2013) available to BLM permittees in Oregon’s sage-grouse habitat, and it is proposed for use in the State of Oregon Habitat Quantification Tool (for use in Oregon’s Sage-grouse Mitigation Program). Central to the STM Framework is the identification of all ecosystem threats to sage-grouse habitat and opportunities to maintain or improve ecological condition over time.

When conducting a Land Health Assessment, the BLM collects field data to assess 17 indicators of Rangeland Health (Pellant et al. 2005). The BLM assesses indicators relative to departure from a reference state for each ecological site or dominant vegetation community. When completing the HAF, the BLM assesses information at three scales and makes a suitability rating for each scale and each seasonal habitat. At the mid-scale, represented by sage-grouse sub-populations and PACs, the areas with potential to provide habitat are identified, seasonal habitats are mapped, and landscape indicators such as sagebrush availability, patch size, abundance, edge effects and habitat connectivity between populations are assessed. At the fine-scale, represented by lek clusters and leks, seasonal use areas are identified, connectivity between use area, and human disturbances are assessed. At the site-scale, indicators identified in the RMPA (Table 2-2) are assessed. Quantitative data for the 17 Rangeland Health indicators and the sage-grouse habitat assessments are collected using the BLM Core Terrestrial Indicators and Methods (MacKinnon et al. 2011). Supplemental indicators are collected if necessary, following the BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy (AIM)(Taylor et al. 2014). AIM Core Terrestrial Indicators: Bare grounds Non-native invasive species Plant species of management concern Proportion of large gaps in plant canopy Vegetation composition Vegetation height Rangeland Health indicators Rills Water flow patterns Pedestals/terracettes Gullies Wind-scoured, blowout and/or depositional areas Litter movement Soil surface resistance to erosion Soil surface loss or degradation Plant community composition and distribution relative to infiltration and runoff Compaction layer Functional/structural groups Plant mortality/decadence Litter amount Annual production Invasive plants Reproductive capability of perennial plants

Work and products completed to date Project proposal Field day assessment of ecostates (STM) on O’Keeffe Allotment (July 26-28, 2016) Ecostate map finalized by Lakeview BLM; threats and conservation measures identified Summary report of discussion and lessons learned from field days Revised Upland Ecological State Documentation form tailored for BLM Draft supplemental materials to provide further guidance for completing STM assessments Project proposal that communicates mutually identified goals/objectives, methods, and timeline Field day assessment participants included staff from Lakeview BLM District Office, BLM State Office, USFWS, ODFW, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, and permittee (John O’Keeffe) Supplemental materials include (1) protocol for determining ecostates in the field; and (2) comprehensive description of each ecostate in the STM framework including associated threats and ecological trend assessment

Preliminary findings STM has utility for prioritizing limited resources for quantitative monitoring efforts Conducting STM mapping with grazing permit renewals provides an integrated and collaborative approach to identify treatments & concurrently develop grazing management strategies that will promote the success of those treatments Reserve intensified monitoring for areas where: (1) treatments and effectiveness monitoring are most needed (e.g. less desirable ecostates [e.g. States B or C] with the potential to shift to more desirable states); (2) ecological trend is uncertain and monitoring can confirm if conditions are improving or worsening. Intensified monitoring may not be required in areas with stable ecological states that are either in desirable condition (State A) or are highly degraded and unlikely to shift to a more desirable state without significant, long-term rehabilitation investment (States D or E).

Preliminary findings STM Framework allows for a common set of planning and communication tools to be used on private and public lands enrolled in CCAAs and CCAs, respectively, thus providing opportunities for “whole ranch operation planning”. STM mapping could have utility for planning at the watershed level.

Next Steps April 2017 May 2017 Summer 2017 State Office and Lakeview BLM will review and summarize AIM and other legacy/trend data Lakeview BLM will complete Rangeland Health and HAF assessments for O’Keeffe allotment May 2017 Field day with interagency team and permittee to review RHA/HAF findings Summer 2017 Interpret and prepare findings for incorporation into relevant BLM management planning documents Prepare EA for allotment permit renewal Complete post-pilot project assessment

Questions?