Transcript Rapid Measurement of Ecological Integrity May 10, 2012

Rapid Measurement of
Ecological Integrity
May 10, 2012
Measuring Habitat/Biodiversity
Outcomes Across Jurisdictions
and Scales
A broad partnership is developing
tools to address:
• Measuring aspects of
biodiversity condition
• Metrics for tracking
biodiversity outcomes
• Consistent approach
• Practical design
• Sharing of tools and data
Key questions for establishing
habitat metrics
Question
Assessment approach
Characteristics
1. What habitats exist?
Ecological systems and
National Vegetation
Classification (US NVC)
• FGDC standard
• Used by states, feds and NGOs
• Systematic hierarchy of types
2. Which ones are
targets for action?
Relative significance of
• Provide context for choosing
habitats or populations
among sites
(e.g., proportion of known • Efficient targeting of scarce
habitat at site, GRank)
resources
3. How are they faring?
• Ecological Integrity
Assessment (EIA)
• Landscape Condition
• Multiple spatial scales
• Multiple scales of effort
• Consistent between levels
4. What actions are
needed to achieve
goals?
EIA stressors that can be
managed on the ground
Same as #3
5. Are these actions
working?
EIA monitoring framework
• Scale effort to mgmt need
• Designed with goals in mind
Nested hierarchy of ecological units
United States
7 biomes
47 ecoregions
191 macrogroups (NVC)
826 ecological systems
Terrestrial ecological systems and land
cover of the coterminous US, map
produced by NatureServe
Users of Ecological Systems and
USNVC Classifications
Which ones are targets for action?
(examples)
Wetlands (mitigation)
Priority ecosystems and habitats
for regulated species (planning
and mitigation)
Longleaf pine forests; fire stressed
ecosystems (restoration)
Habitats on state wildlife
management areas (restoration and
planning)
How are they faring?
Ecological integrity
• The ability of an ecological system to support and
maintain a community of organisms that has
species composition, diversity, and functional
organization comparable to those of natural
habitats within a region
• Define goals and objectives related to ecological
integrity for:
1. Land management
2. Restoration and mitigation
3. Conservation metrics
Increasing ecological integrity
Ecological integrity
Rank
A
Rank
B
Rank
C
Rank
D
Increasing disturbance
Adapted from Faber-Langendoen et al. 2008
Excellent integrity – A rank
• Highest quality sites
• Unfragmented landscape
• Landscape area larger than
minimum dynamic area
• Exemplary size (e.g., areadependent species)
• Biotic/abiotic components
well within natural range of
variability
• Invasives largely absent
• Natural processes in place
Poor integrity – D rank
• Severely altered characteristics
• Highly fragmented
• Landscape well below minimum dynamic area
• Size is small, e.g. unable to sustain area-dependent species.
• Biotic/abiotic
components severely
altered from natural
range of variability
• Invasives abundant
Increasing ecological integrity
Setting Ecological Integrity Goals
Ecosystem
Conservation Goal
Rank
A
Rank
B
Rank
C
Increasing human disturbance
Rank
D
Ecological Integrity Monitoring
Level 1) Remote assessment
Level 2) Rapid field assessment
Level 3) Intensive assessment
Overall components of ecological
integrity assessment
Level 1
Remote Sensing Assessment
ID reference sites
Landscape context metrics
Supplement status & trend plots
Level 3
Intensive Assessment
Verify reference sites
Condition metrics
Sample design, S&T plots
Level 2
Rapid Assessment
Verify reference sites
Condition & buffer metrics
Stressors
Supplement S&T plots
Level 1: Remote assessment
Landscape context – Connectivity,
surrounding land use, patch size,
and stressors
Level 1: Remote assessment
Level 2: Rapid field assessment
 Landscape characteristics
 Vegetation cover and composition
 Soil condition
 Disturbance regimes
 Wildlife abundance and composition
 Stressors
 Calibration of remote techniques
Level 2: Rapid field assessment
Photo plots as example
1957
2006
Level 3: Intensive assessment
Level 3: Intensive assessment
 Landscape characteristics
 Vegetation cover and composition
 Soil condition
 Disturbance regimes
 Wildlife abundance and composition
 Stressors
 Calibration of remote and rapid
techniques
Steps to Implementation
• Conduct assessment of current condition to
determine ecological integrity
• Identify limiting factors
• Choose goal desired for site
• Determine desired ecological conditions to meet
the Ecological Integrity goal
• Establish relevant Tier 1-3 monitoring design
based on desired conditions
• Collect data – conduct evaluation
Ongoing partnerships to test and
implement EIAs
Wetlands restoration and
measuring changes in wetlands
nationally
Assessment of habitat condition
and management of ecosystem
stressors
Management and restoration of
longleaf pine ecosystems; fire
management nationwide
Define conservation goals and measure
management effectiveness
Application of Ecological Integrity
Monitoring and Evaluation
Examples from State of Washington
• WDFW Grazing Program
• WDFW Wildlife Areas – Habitat Conservation
Plans
• State Wildlife Action Plan
• EPA wetland condition assessments
• Biodiversity Monitoring
• Citizen Science
Working in partnership, we can
realize these benefits…
Benefit
Mechanism
1. Reduced cost
• Don’t re-invent the wheel
• Scale level of effort to resources and mgmt need
2. Easier to communicate
• Consistent approach
• Common tools and models
3. Adaptive management
• Monitoring flows from EIA goals
• Results linked to management objectives
4. Inform climate change
adaptation
• Assessment can include climate stressors
5. Report outcomes to investors
• Demonstrate results for specific metrics
• Show advancement towards desired condition
• Increase transparency
6. Job creation
• Improve public confidence in restoration and
mitigation by businesses – reducing delays
• Grow constituencies for effective public sector
management