Project History and Purpose
The San Juan Public Lands Center (SJPLC) in Durango, Colorado is currently working on a new land use plan aimed at updating and replacing the existing plans for the San Juan National Forest (SJNF) and the BLM's Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa Field Offices This initiative seeks to incorporate valuable input to enhance land management strategies in the region.
2004 BLM asked The Nature Conservancy of Colorado (TNC) to develop a conservation assessment of the San Juan Public Lands (SJPL) planning area
The San Juan Planning for Biodiversity Model Project, completed in two phases (Kram et al 2005, Oliver et al 2006), was initiated on September 20, 2004, under the Bureau of Land Management's National Assistance Agreement with The Nature Conservancy (Cooperative Agreement #DAA020211) For an overview of the project, the Executive Summary of both phases is available in Appendix 1, and the full reports can be accessed online at http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/CO%20-%20San%20Juan%20Project.
The San Juan Project delivered a comprehensive monitoring framework for BLM-administered lands, which outlines a prioritized set of indicators to effectively assess the viability of biodiversity resources.
On September 4, 2007, the San Juan National Forest and The Nature Conservancy established a Participating Agreement (No 07-PA-11021300-081) to implement the San Juan Forest Biodiversity Monitoring Framework, based on the monitoring model developed for BLM lands within the San Juan Public Lands.
The SJF Monitoring Framework Project is a collaborative initiative aimed at identifying and prioritizing key indicators to assess the long-term health and sustainability of species, plant communities, and ecosystems within the San Juan National Forest This collection of prioritized indicators is known as the "SJNF monitoring framework."
The SJF Monitoring Framework Project was developed based on an understanding and expectation of mutual benefits and mutual interests between the SJNF and TNC These include:
With over 50 years of scientific expertise in conservation planning, The Conservancy has conducted extensive ecoregional assessments throughout the West Their contributions will focus on evaluating the biodiversity of the planning area by integrating regional, ecoregional, and local factors while utilizing the best available data Additionally, The Conservancy will leverage insights from the Forest Service to enhance their ecoregional assessments.
Collaborative conservation planning at local, regional and landscape scales offers the opportunity to address multiple at-risk species before they become federally listed.
The Forest Service can enhance land use decisions that serve the public interest by integrating biological information at local, landscape, and regional levels.
The collaboration between the Conservancy and the Forest Service aims to enhance planning efficiency and effectiveness, leading to the successful conservation and restoration of various species and habitats on public land.
Successful elements of this joint process will be documented for potential application in other Forests and Grasslands.
Scope and Uses of the Report
This report centers on the San Juan Public Lands planning area (SJPA), specifically targeting the lands managed by the US Forest Service (USFS) It aims to assist the USFS in fulfilling its obligations to incorporate biological resources and ecological values into land use planning, in accordance with national guidelines.
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the National Forest Management Act (36 CFR 219).
The report serves a crucial role in guiding the San Juan Public Lands' decisions regarding the San Juan Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.
The RMP/EIS integrates scientific data and analyses to ensure decisions are informed by the best available inventories, field data, and peer-reviewed literature This comprehensive report will guide the development of key chapters, including Alternatives, Desired Conditions, Affected Environment, and Environmental Consequences, while also aiding in the formulation of effective monitoring and activity plans.
This report highlights the ongoing utility of the products developed during a two-day workshop where SJPL resource specialists collaborated with TNC biologists to identify and prioritize essential ecological attributes and indicators The newly established monitoring framework, along with a previously developed framework for BLM-administered lands, enables SJPL to effectively monitor biological resource health and supports adaptive management strategies across the entire planning area.
Acknowledgements
Introduction/Uses
San Juan Public Lands and TNC staff collaborated in a two-day workshop to develop a monitoring framework utilizing the Conservancy's "Conservation Action Planning" (CAP) process This framework aims to establish a foundation for effectiveness monitoring and adaptive management.
The monitoring framework is essential for the U.S Forest Service (USFS) to fulfill its obligations related to biological resources and ecological values, as mandated by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the 1982 USFS Planning Rule This framework plays a crucial role in the land use planning process, particularly as the San Juan National Forest undertakes its forest plan revision By implementing this monitoring framework, the Forest Service can ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and effectively manage forest resources.
U.S Code 1604(g) mandates that National Forest System Land and Resource Management Plans incorporate provisions for plant and animal diversity This includes guidelines aimed at fostering diverse plant and animal communities tailored to the specific land area's suitability and capability, thereby supporting multiple-use objectives Additionally, these plans should strive to preserve the diversity of tree species native to the region, as feasible Furthermore, they require ongoing research and continuous field monitoring to assess the impacts of management systems, ensuring that land productivity remains intact and free from substantial and permanent impairment.
The 1982 USFS Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) outlines essential requirements for maintaining biodiversity and viable populations of fish and wildlife within planning areas According to Section 219.19, habitats must be managed to support viable populations of both native and desired non-native vertebrate species, ensuring their continued existence through proper distribution and reproductive numbers Section 219.26 emphasizes the importance of diversity in plant and animal communities, as well as tree species, aligning with the multiple-use objectives of the area Furthermore, Section 219.27 mandates that all management prescriptions must protect resources by maintaining biodiversity and providing adequate habitats for native species, while also implementing measures to prevent the destruction of critical habitats for threatened and endangered species.
The 1982 USFS Planning Rule (36 219.12(k)) mandates that forest management plans include regular monitoring to assess the effectiveness of objectives and adherence to management standards This evaluation should occur at specified intervals and involve sampling to gauge the success of implementation Additionally, the forest plan must outline the monitoring activities, detailing the specific actions, effects, or resources to be measured and the frequency of these measurements.
While the San Juan National Forest is developing its plan revision in accordance with the 1982 Planning Rule, the monitoring framework also helps ensure the Forest’s conformance with the
Monitoring requirements per the 2008 USFS Planning Rule Section 219.6
Annual evaluations of monitoring results are essential for assessing the effectiveness of the management plan The plan must outline a comprehensive monitoring program tailored to the specific area, ensuring it addresses key objectives This program should focus on evaluating how well on-the-ground management practices are achieving the desired conditions and objectives set forth in the plan.
The 2008 USFS Planning Rule Section 219.10 emphasizes the importance of ecological sustainability within the National Forest System (NFS) by highlighting three interconnected elements: social, economic, and ecological The primary objective of the ecological aspect is to create a framework that sustains ecological systems, ensuring suitable conditions for the diversity of native plant and animal species in the designated area To achieve this, plan components must outline strategies that promote ecosystem diversity within the plan area.
Importantly, the monitoring framework also provides a useful basis for adaptive management
Adaptive management has been integral to Forest Service planning since 1995, serving as a foundational element of ecosystem management, as noted by the NFMA The NFMA emphasizes that land management planning is part of an ongoing adaptive cycle for managing National Forest System (NFS) lands Effective adaptive management requires well-defined objectives and a robust monitoring framework to evaluate progress toward these goals.
Consistent with this commitment to adaptive management, the monitoring framework helps USFS conform with the guidance set forth in LMP Monitoring and Evaluation, A Monitoring
The Framework to Support Land Management Planning, established by the USDA Forest Service in 2007, aims to fulfill monitoring requirements while ensuring that National Forest System (NFS) lands contribute to the sustainability of social and economic systems, as well as ecological systems that support diverse native plant and animal species This monitoring framework identifies key ecological priorities and provides a scientific foundation for establishing desired conditions and objectives, aligning with the goals set forth by the National Forest Management Act.
To promote sustainability in National Forests and Grasslands, Land Management Plans should incorporate desired conditions for at least six themes and relevant sub-elements The San Juan National Forest (SJNF) monitoring framework supports all three ecological themes and their sub-elements, while the FS/TNC monitoring framework specifically focuses on the Conservation of Biological Diversity theme and its associated sub-elements.
Figure 1 Excerpt from USFS monitoring guidance (USDA Forest Service 2007a) The pink box, added, shows the themes and sub-elements that the SJNF monitoring framework addresses.
The monitoring framework plays a crucial role in supporting both social and economic benefits by focusing on the maintenance and enhancement of these themes Specifically, the SJNF monitoring framework emphasizes the importance of species and vegetation diversity, which, when effectively managed, fosters a range of opportunities and settings that contribute to social benefits Additionally, this ecological management ensures the continued capacity of forests and grasslands to deliver various goods and services, thereby bolstering economic benefits.
Goals and Objectives
The monitoring framework is designed to establish a foundation for evaluating effectiveness and facilitating adaptive management Its primary goal is to pinpoint key monitoring priorities that will allow the Forest Service and its partners to determine their success in achieving desired outcomes.
Maintaining or improving resource health at appropriate scales;
Minimizing impacts to resource health; and
Within this context, the goals for the monitoring framework are to:
Incorporate extensive input and expertise from SJPL resource personnel;
Be feasible, cost-effective and useful to USFS;
Contribute to the sustainability of biological resources;
Identify additional potential sources of data for monitoring (e.g partners, etc.);
Inform desired outcomes (goals and objectives)
Inform management and restoration at planning and project level scales.
Methods
The monitoring framework was developed through a collaborative two-day workshop organized by the Conservancy, involving participants from San Juan Public Lands During this workshop, draft materials were presented for review and modification Following the event, the Conservancy shared the draft results with the agencies for feedback, which has been integrated into the final report.
The Nature Conservancy employs its Conservation Action Planning (CAP) methodology to establish conservation and restoration priorities across various scales, from hundreds to millions of acres This process involves identifying key ecological systems, plant communities, and species within a designated area, followed by a systematic assessment of their health and potential impacts The findings from these assessments guide participants in determining strategic actions and monitoring priorities, which are organized into a structured framework.
Focal Target Indicator Priority Status Methods Frequency & timing Who monitors
Very High, High, Med, or Low
Ongoing, Planned, or No Plan
The Excel workbook serves as a comprehensive documentation tool for the entire CAP process within specific planning areas, utilized for the SJF Monitoring Framework Project In addition to the workbook, certain aspects of the workshop were recorded in separate documents All workshop information has been incorporated into the workbook, which is being shared with USFS in a digital format as part of this report (see Appendix 2).
Each step leading to the completion of the SJNF monitoring framework is depicted in Figure 2 and described below.
Figure 2 Process used to create, implement, and adapt the monitoring framework.
Identify Project Scope
The project's geographic scope can encompass various dimensions, including ecological systems, physiographic features like watersheds, or jurisdictional boundaries such as USFS planning areas or counties The objective is to delineate a project area that balances efficiency in analysis with adequate detail For instance, concentrating solely on one vegetation type may limit the analysis, while examining all of Western Colorado may be excessively broad Typically, the Conservancy designates project areas ranging from thousands to over a million acres to achieve this balance.
Identify Focal Targets
The next step is to organize the biological resources in the planning area – species, plant communities, and ecological systems - into ecologically meaningful and manageable groupings
Participants identified two types of targets for their monitoring framework: focal targets and nested targets Focal targets are essential biological features, including a select group of species, plant communities, or ecological systems that collectively represent the biological diversity of the project area These targets often consist of specific vegetation types or ecological systems, such as Ponderosa Pine Woodlands, as well as particular plant communities or species requiring focused management, like Fens Nested targets, on the other hand, are biological features—species, plant communities, and ecological systems—whose management needs fall under the umbrella of a focal target.
At its simplest, this process of organizing biological resources is documented in the following outline:
Focal target 1 (an ecological system, plant community, or species) o Nested target A (ecological system, community, or species) o Nested target B (ecological system, community, or species) o Etc.
The nested targets list aims to identify species and plant communities that exhibit one or more specific characteristics, rather than serving as a comprehensive inventory.
Rare, endemic to the area, or experiencing significant recent declines;
Compliance issues such as USFS Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species; and/or
Other candidates for monitoring such as species that are particularly sensitive to disturbance or are characteristic of, or dependant on, the focal target.
The Phase I Final Report of the San Juan Planning for Biodiversity Model Project (Kram et al 2005) identified several significant finer scale features through a comprehensive regional context analysis.
amp; 4: Assess integrity
Participants outlined the key indicators for the monitoring framework, as detailed in Table 1, and assessed both the current and desired states of each indicator to guide the prioritization process.
Step #3 involved the identification of key attributes and indicators for each focal target and step
#4 the identification of the current and desired condition for each indicator These steps were organized into the format shown in Table 2
Step 3 Identify key attributes and indicators for each focal target (e.g., Lower Elevation
Step 4 Identify current and desired condition for each indicator
(bold = current condition; italics = desired condition )
Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good
Depredation & parasitism Proportion of streams infected with whirling disease more than 50% of streams have detected whirling disease
25 - 50% of streams have detected whirling disease
5-24% of streams have detected whirling disease less than 5% of streams have detected whirling disease
Key attributes are essential components of a target's life history, physical processes, community interactions, and habitat relationships with other species These attributes are crucial for understanding the composition, structure, and function of the target They highlight characteristics that, if degraded (such as water quality) or absent (like pollinators), could threaten the target's long-term survival Identification of key attributes relies on ecological models, scientific literature, local knowledge, and comparative data from similar contexts There are three distinct types of key attributes.
Landscape Context Landscape context is a measure of two factors: the dominant environmental regimes and processes that establish and maintain the target, and connectivity
Dominant environmental regimes and processes may include:
hydrologic and water chemistry regimes (surface and groundwater),
climatic regimes (temperature and precipitation),
fire regimes and many other kinds of natural disturbance.
access to habitats and resources needed for life cycle completion,
ability to respond to environmental change through dispersal, migration, or re- colonization.
Condition Condition is a measure of the composition, structure and biotic interactions that characterize the occurrence, including attributes such as:
biological composition (e.g., presence of native versus exotic species; presence of characteristic patch types for ecological systems)
structure (e.g., canopy, understory, and ground cover in a plant community; spatial distribution and juxtaposition of patch types or seral stages in an ecological system),
biotic interactions (e.g., levels of competition, predation, and disease).
Size is a crucial metric in ecological systems and plant communities, representing the patch size or geographic coverage within the monitoring framework For species, size encompasses both the area of occupancy and the population count Additionally, the minimum dynamic area, which refers to the space necessary for the survival or re-establishment of a target following natural disturbances, is an important consideration in assessing size.
Indicators are essential metrics used to evaluate the condition of key attributes, allowing for the monitoring of specific targets and the assessment of management and restoration project effectiveness These indicators are grounded in scientific research, ecological modeling, and expert insights.
Current and Desired Condition Participants identified the current and desired condition of each indicator, using “indicator ratings” based on the definitions below:
Very Good - The indicator is functioning within a desirable status, requiring little human intervention for maintenance within the natural range of variation (i.e., is as close to
“natural” as possible and has little chance of being degraded by some random event)
Good - The indicator is functioning within its range of acceptable variation, although it may require some human intervention for maintenance
The indicator is currently outside its acceptable range, necessitating human intervention for maintenance to restore it within the desired limits If left unaddressed, the target risks significant degradation.
Leaving the indicator in a poor condition for an extended time can render the restoration or prevention of target extirpation nearly impossible, as reversing the alterations may become overly complicated, costly, and uncertain.
Quantifying each indicator rating is essential for achieving a clear, transparent, and measurable assessment of both current and desired conditions As demonstrated in Table 2, these quantified ratings provide a systematic approach to evaluation.
“Proportion of streams infected with whirling disease” indicator However, it is also possible and often necessary to define the indicator ratings using qualitative criteria
Indicator ratings, whether quantitative or qualitative, should consider the historical range of variability to accurately reflect key attributes over time in relatively undisturbed settings This variation is not random; instead, it typically remains within a defined range over extended periods The current and desired conditions of an indicator can be classified as either consistent with the long-term persistence of the target, falling within the historic range of variability, or outside this range, often influenced by human activities such as fire suppression in ecosystems that rely on fire for maintenance.
The Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) has established occurrence ranking criteria for various ecological systems, plant communities, and species in Colorado, serving as a valuable resource for indicator ratings that evaluate both current and desired conditions These criteria are detailed in the System Integrity Guidelines and Community assessments, providing essential insights for ecological evaluation.
The Planning for Biodiversity Model Project Phase I and II reports include essential profiles and ranking criteria for species The Conservancy utilized the ranking criteria established by CNHP to develop indicator ratings within the SJNF monitoring framework Participants in workshops refined these ratings based on local expertise and adjusted them to ensure relevance throughout the planning area.
The Excel workbook efficiently compiles participants' evaluations of the current condition for each indicator, producing a summary table (see Table 3) This summary is crucial for prioritizing the monitoring framework, as focal targets with lower overall integrity rankings—classified as fair or poor—indicate a higher urgency for monitoring.
Table 3 Sample summary of integrity
Focal target Landscape context Condition Size Overall integrity rank
Grassland type X Good Fair Good Good
Shrublands type Y Fair Poor - Fair
Riparian/Aquatic Fair Good - Good
The Overall Integrity Rank is calculated using an algorithm integrated within the Excel workbook, which evaluates the current condition rankings of the Landscape Context, Condition, and Size attributes for each focal target Detailed information about this algorithm can be found on the “Scoring Tab” in the workbook (see Appendix 2).
Identify Land Health Issues
This step aims to systematically evaluate current and expected land health issues for each key attribute by focal target By identifying the factors that significantly impact systems, plant communities, and species, we can better inform management objectives and prioritize monitoring efforts.
Assessing land health involves two main components: identifying the key stresses affecting focal targets and determining the sources of those stresses A stress refers to any factor that compromises the integrity of a focal target by influencing its essential attributes, while a source of stress is a concrete factor that generates this impairment Examples of these stresses and their sources can be found in Table 4.
Table 4 Examples of stresses and sources of stress.
Condition of ecological system Sedimentation Excessive livestock use of streambanks.
Intactness of ecological system Habitat destruction Development of roads or utility corridors Species composition/dominance Altered species composition Invasive plants
Fire regime Altered fire regime Fire management practices
Stress Assessment Participants identified key stresses to a given target and then ranked the
“severity” and the “scope” of each stress in order to describe its actual or anticipated impact:
The severity of damage to a target over the next decade is categorized into four levels based on current conditions A low severity indicates that stress will only slightly impair the target during its presence at the site Medium severity suggests a moderate degradation of the target over time High severity points to serious degradation affecting the target's occurrence at the site Finally, very high severity implies that the stress is likely to completely destroy or eliminate the target during its time at the site.
The geographic scope of impact on conservation targets over the next decade varies based on the level of stress A low impact indicates that stress will be very localized, affecting only a small portion of the target's location A medium impact suggests that stress will still be localized but will influence several locations within the site A high impact denotes that stress will be widespread, affecting many of the target's locations Lastly, a very high impact implies that stress will be pervasive, impacting the conservation target across all its occurrences at the site.
Participants assessed various sources of stress by identifying and ranking them based on their contribution and irreversibility, thereby illustrating the actual or anticipated impact of each source on their overall stress levels.
The expected contribution of a source to the overall expression of stress under current circumstances can be categorized as follows: a low contribution indicates that the source has minimal impact on the stress level, while a medium contribution suggests a moderate influence A high contribution signifies that the source plays a significant role in contributing to the stress, and a very high contribution denotes that the source is a major factor in the stress experienced.
Irreversibility: Irreversibility of the stress caused by the Source of Stress. o Low - The source produces a stress that is easily reversible at relatively low cost
Wetland stress levels vary based on the source and its impact on the environment Medium-level stress can be reversed with a reasonable investment of resources, such as ditching and draining High-level stress is also reversible but may not be practically affordable, as seen in cases where wetlands are converted to agricultural land In contrast, very high-level stress results in irreversible damage, exemplified by wetlands transformed into shopping centers Understanding these stress levels is crucial for effective wetland management and conservation efforts.
The Excel workbook (Appendix 2) compiles participants' feedback on stressors into a summarized table (Table 5), which aids in prioritizing the monitoring framework by highlighting targets with greater overall impact or threat levels This summary is also beneficial for guiding management decisions at both the planning and project stages.
Table 5 Sample summary of stresses and sources
Sources of stress across focal targets
Excessive use of streambanks by livestock n/a n/a High Medium
Development of roads or utilities
Invasive plants High High Medium High
Fire management practices High Medium Low Medium
Overall rank High High Low Medium
The rankings in this table are calculated using algorithms embedded in the Excel workbook, which evaluate stress severity, scope, source contribution, and irreversibility Detailed information about these algorithms can be found on the “Scoring Tab” in the workbook (Appendix 2).
In Step 6, the focus is on identifying objectives, which was not covered in this project This step is crucial as it involves defining objectives and management actions based on the findings from integrity and impact assessments These objectives can subsequently be incorporated into the Land Management Plan and project plans.
The identification of Specific, Measureable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-specific
(“SMART”) objectives provides a firm basis for subsequent monitoring Both measureable objectives and monitoring are critical steps in implementing adaptive management.
In Step 7 of Conservation Action Planning (TNC 2005), the assessment of integrity and impacts plays a crucial role in prioritizing objectives and monitoring efforts, with lower integrity and higher impact indicators receiving greater priority During the SJF Monitoring Framework Project, workshop participants engaged in a two-step process to establish monitoring priorities among the identified indicators based on these assessments.
In a recent workshop, participants collaborated to identify and rank criteria for prioritizing monitoring indicators Each criterion was assigned a priority level—Very High, High, Medium, or Low—followed by a refinement process to ensure that the Very High priorities were accurately determined The finalized criteria and their corresponding ranks are detailed in Table 6.
Table 6 Criteria used to inform prioritization of monitoring indicators.
Indicator of management effectiveness (more project-level) VH Viability/integrity issue (e.g., sensitive species may be moved to a T&E list) VH
Perennial bunchgrasses play a crucial role in maintaining ecosystem stability The SJPLC can significantly influence these systems, depending on the intensity of activities directed at specific focal targets and the implementation of innovative management techniques.
High risk/rarity (biodiversity elements close to a threshold) VH
Document implementation of the forest plan (e.g., success at conserving species) H
It is essential to thoroughly verify the assumptions that informed the development of the land use plan Additionally, accountability is crucial; stakeholders must ensure that commitments made are fulfilled Furthermore, it is important to consider issues that extend beyond the jurisdiction of the San Juan Public Lands Center, such as the impact of mercury pollution.
Participants prioritized the monitoring indicators identified through integrity and impact assessments by utilizing specific criteria They engaged in an informal, consensus-driven process to evaluate the Very High criteria, which significantly influenced the prioritization of each indicator Generally, an indicator was assigned a Very High monitoring priority only if it met one or more of the Very High criteria established during the assessment process.
This section presents the products of Steps 1-7 of the CAP process described above in Methods
Identify Monitoring Priorities
Results
This section presents the products of Steps 1-7 of the CAP process described above in Methods
To enhance the existing monitoring framework for BLM-administered lands in the San Juan planning area, the Forest Service and TNC have collaborated to concentrate this project specifically on the National Forest System lands within the same region.
Figure 3 Scope of the project: National Forest lands within the San Juan Public Lands.
The San Juan National Forest encompasses a diverse array of terrestrial ecological systems, represented by 13 broad focal targets identified in the USGS National Gap Analysis Program (2004) and NatureServe (2003) These targets align with the "Major Vegetation Types" outlined in the San Juan Public Lands Draft Land Management Plan (USDI and USDA 2007) A detailed crosswalk of these Major Vegetation Types into the identified focal targets is presented in Table 7.
Table 7 Crosswalk of SJPL Major Vegetation Types into SJF Monitoring Framework Project focal targets.
SJPL Major Vegetation Types Monitoring Framework Focal Targets
Semi-Desert Grassland Semi-desert and Sagebrush Shrubland
Semi-Desert Shrubland Semi-desert and Sagebrush Shrubland
Mountain Shrubland Mixed Montane Shrubland
Riparian Area and Wetland Upper or Lower Elevation Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland
Sagebrush Shrubland Semi-desert and Sagebrush Shrubland
Aspen – Conifer Forest Aspen Forest
Cool-Moist Mixed Conifer Forest Spruce-Fir and Cool-Moist Mixed Conifer Forest
Warm-Dry Mixed Conifer Forest Dry Mixed Conifer Forest
Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinyon-Juniper Woodland
Ponderosa Pine Forest Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodland
Spruce-Fir Forest Spruce-Fir and Cool-Moist Mixed Conifer Forest
Water Lakes and Isolated Wetlands
Figure 4 shows the distribution of these focal targets on the San Juan Public Lands as a reclassing of the R2Veg Geodatabase (San Juan National Forest 2008).
Figure 4 Distribution of focal targets across San Juan National Forest lands.
The article encompasses various terrestrial ecological systems as identified by the USGS National Gap Analysis Program (2004), including 160 rare or special status communities and species Notably, a single nested target may fall under multiple focal targets For a comprehensive overview, Appendix 3 includes the complete list of focal and nested targets, while Table 8 summarizes the count of nested targets.
Table 8 Summary of focal and nested targets for the San Juan National Forest
Nested Targets Examples of Nested Targets
30 System: Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Savanna
Community: Arizona Fescue–Mountain Muhly Herbaceous Vegetation Species: Abert’s Squirrel (Sciurus aberti)
26 System: Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra
Community: Carex vernacula Herbaceous Vegetation Species: White-tailed Ptarmigan (Lagopus leucurus) Spruce-Fir and
30 System: Rocky Mountain Cliff and Canyon
Community: Parry’s Oatgrass Montane Grassland Species: Colorado Tansy-aster (Machaeranthera coloradoensis) Montane
Grasslands 9 System: Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow
Community: Thurber Fescue Subalpine Grassland Species: Gunnison Prairie Dog (Cynomys gunnisonii) Aspen Forest
6 System: Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland
Community: (none identified) Species: Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentiles) Mixed Montane
Shrublands 13 System: Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland
Community: (none identified) Species: Green-tailed towhee (Pipilo chlorurus) Dry Mixed
System: Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland
Community: Douglas-fir / Oregon Boxleaf Forest Species: Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) Pinyon-Juniper
Woodland 23 System: Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland
Community: (none identified) Species: Fringe-tailed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes pahasapensis) Sagebrush Semi- desert and
System: Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe Community: (none identified)
Species: Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri)
System: Rocky Mountain Supalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland Community: White Fir-Colorado Blue Spruce-Narrowleaf
Cottonwood/Rocky Mountain Maple Forest Species: Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia pleuriticus)
System: Rocky Mtn Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland Community: Narrowleaf Cottonwood/Skunkbush Woodland
Species: Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta) Lakes and isolated wetlands System: Seeps and Springs
Community: Wooly Sedge Herbaceous Vegetation Species: Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas)
21 System: Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Fen
Community: Iron Fen Species: Altai Cotton-grass (Eriophorum altaicum var neogaeum)
* The nested targets associated with Upper and Lower Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland and Lake and Isolated Wetland targets were not specifically broken out among the three focal targets.
Participants evaluated integrity by pinpointing essential attributes that define the health of each focal target, establishing indicators for measuring these attributes, and determining both the current and desired status for each indicator For detailed results, refer to Appendix 4.
Participants recognized 135 distinct indicators related to three key attributes: size, condition, and landscape context The integrity of the focal targets, as summarized in Table 9, reflects the participants' rankings across all focal targets on USFS lands, indicating an overall status ranging from Fair to Good.
Among the 13 focal targets assessed, five were rated as Good overall, including Alpine, Spruce-Fir and Cool Moist Mixed Conifer Forest, Montane Grasslands, Mixed Montane Shrublands, and Fens In contrast, the remaining seven focal targets, such as Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodland, Aspen Forests, Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands, Semi-desert and Sagebrush Shrublands, Upper Elevation Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland, Lower Elevation Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland, and Lakes and Isolated Wetlands, received a Fair rating, indicating a greater level of concern among participating resource specialists.
The overall rankings of various ecosystems, such as the Ponderosa Pine Forests, reveal concerns about their integrity, particularly regarding landscape context While the Ponderosa Pine Forests received a high rank, their landscape context was rated Poor, indicating potential issues Similarly, the Semi-desert and Sagebrush Shrublands in the San Juan National Forest also ranked Poor in terms of landscape context To gain a comprehensive understanding of these evaluations, it is essential to examine the specific rankings of the landscape context indicators.
The condition of three out of four wetland-oriented focal targets on the SJNF—Upper Elevation Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland; Lower Elevation Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland; and Lakes and Isolated Wetlands—has been rated as Poor, indicating a need for focused management and monitoring efforts.
Table 9 showcases the significant biological assets of San Juan National Forest, emphasizing the extensive unfragmented patches of key vegetation types, including alpine vegetation, ponderosa pine forests, and spruce-fir/cool-moist mixed conifer forests Additionally, it highlights the abundance of healthy upper elevation riparian areas and the presence of numerous fens, with eleven out of thirteen focal targets receiving high rankings.
Good or Very Good for integrity with respect to size Only the Semi-desert and Sagebrush
Shrublands, and the Lower Elevation Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland focal targets ranked Fair.
Context Condition Size Overall Rank
Woodland Poor Fair Very Good Fair
Alpine Good Fair Very Good Good
Spruce-Fir and Cool-Moist
Mixed Conifer Forest Fair Good Very Good Good
Montane Grasslands Fair Good Good Good
Aspen Forests Fair Fair Good Fair
Mixed Montane Shrublands Fair Good Good Good
Dry Mixed Conifer Forests Fair Good Good Good
Pinyon - Juniper Woodlands Fair Fair Good Fair
Shrublands Poor Fair Fair Fair
Aquatic and Wetland Good Poor Good Fair
Aquatic and Wetland Fair Poor Fair Fair
Lakes and Isolated wetlands Good Poor - Fair
Fens Fair Good Very Good Good
Assessing land health issues (also termed impacts) involves the identification and ranking of:
Stresses: factors that impair the integrity of a focal target by impacting the key ecological attributes of that target (example = altered species composition); and
Sources of stress: tangible factors that cause the stress (example = invasive species).
See Appendix 5 for the full Stress and Source of Stress ranking sheets for each focal target.
On the second day of the workshop, participants gathered as a group to review a draft table outlining various sources of stress They engaged in discussions about the ratings they disagreed with, providing reasons for their differing opinions Following this collaborative effort, the facilitators of the Conservancy updated the stress and sources of stress tables to incorporate the insights and ratings shared by the participants.
Table 10 presents the stress ratings assigned to each target, as determined by workshop participants These ratings—categorized as Very High, High, Medium, or Low—are derived from an assessment of two key factors: the extent to which each source contributes to stress and the irreversibility of the stress it generates.
A recent assessment conducted by workshop participants reveals that 8 out of 13 focal targets are facing or are projected to face High or Very High impacts due to ongoing stressors The affected targets include Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodland, Alpine regions, Montane Grasslands, Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands, Semi-desert and Sagebrush Shrublands, Upper Elevation Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland areas, Lower Elevation Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland regions, as well as Lakes and Isolated Wetlands.
Participants identified invasive plants, livestock usage, and recreational activities such as off-highway vehicles (OHVs) as the primary stressors impacting at least 12 focal targets.
The workshop identified 13 focal targets, revealing that the most significant sources of stress for the SJPL were those that ranked highest across multiple focal targets.
energy and mineral exploration and development
Table 10 Summary of sources of stress to focal targets
The diverse ecosystems of the region include ponderosa pine forests, alpine spruce-fir forests, cool-moist mixed conifer forests, montane grasslands, aspen forests, mixed montane shrublands, dry mixed conifer forests, pinyon-juniper woodlands, semi-desert and sagebrush shrublands, as well as upper and lower elevation riparian, aquatic, and wetland areas Additionally, lakes and isolated wetlands, along with fens, contribute to the overall ecological richness of the landscape.
6 Energy and mineral exploration and development H M M M L M H H
8 Major Wildfires (outside range of historic variability) H L H L M H
13 Road construction, pipelines, other infrastructure M M M M L M L L M
15 Pinyon disease (ips, black fungus) H M
Overall Impact Rating by Target H H M H M M M H H H V H H M
Suggestions
Monitoring Methods, Status and Frequency
In the monitoring framework outlined in Appendix 6, we present insights drawn from our experiences in diverse landscapes and our knowledge of existing monitoring initiatives The Methods column details the monitoring techniques currently in use or potential strategies applicable for assessing specific indicators on SJNF lands Meanwhile, the Frequency column specifies the planned frequency of ongoing monitoring efforts or suggests an optimal monitoring frequency.
In the Status column we indicate the status of monitoring efforts for each indicator, with the following terminology:
The SJNF is currently being monitored by a specific entity, which evaluates this indicator regularly; however, adjustments may be necessary to align monitoring efforts with both plan and project levels.
Data relevant to this indicator is currently being collected by an entity at a certain frequency on the SJNF However, additional analysis and data are necessary to effectively monitor this indicator, and it is unclear whether a baseline has been established.
Not Monitored - No entity is currently collecting data to track this indicator.
The existing monitoring programs, as outlined in the monitoring framework (Appendix 7), play a crucial role in addressing key indicators According to the Conservancy’s current insights, these ongoing efforts effectively cover many high-priority monitoring needs, successfully tracking 8 out of 10 Very High and 56 out of 64 High priority indicators Additionally, data is available for 1 Very High and 7 High priority indicators However, there remains a gap, with 1 Very High and 1 High priority indicator still unmonitored.
High priority indicators that are currently Not Monitored.
In order to meet many of the High or Very High priority monitoring needs whose status is either
Monitored or Data Available, USFS may need to:
Conduct some additional data collection and/or analysis;
Modify some current monitoring methods; and/or
Consolidate and sum up information from project level monitoring programs across the planning area.
San Juan Public Lands and USFS Monitoring Programs
The San Juan Public Lands evaluates wilderness standards by gathering data on wilderness conditions Utilizing the modified Cole method outlined in the Wilderness Monitoring Manual (USDA Forest Service 2006), wilderness monitors systematically inventory and assess the health of campsites, alpine meadows, riparian areas, and the presence of noxious weeds.
Indicators that the current program could cover:
There is 1 indicator that USFS is already monitoring under the existing program:
Number of sites impacted from unsustainable trail use and campsites in the Alpine.
Reference: USDA Forest Service 2006 San Juan – Rio Grande National Forests Wilderness
Monitoring Manual: Background and procedures for monitoring the Weminuche, South San Juan, Piedra, and Lizard head Wilderness Areas 19pp
USFS MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS) MONITORING
Management Indicator Species (MIS) must be identified and monitored on National Forest System Lands in accordance with the National Forest Management Act at the Forest Plan scale This monitoring aims to evaluate the impacts of management activities on both the populations of these species and their associated habitats The MIS outlined in the SJPL Draft Land Management Plan include trout species, Abert’s squirrel, American marten, mountain bluebird, and elk.
SJPL resource specialists conduct annual monitoring of Abert's squirrel clippings to assess population trends and the impact of management practices, with comprehensive summaries every five years Concurrently, pine marten surveys are carried out alongside snowshoe hare surveys in collaboration with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) Additionally, SJPL fisheries staff utilize annual CDOW data on trout species, focusing on metrics such as density, biomass, size structure, and condition factor to evaluate population viability and long-term trends.
Indicators that the current program covers:
There are 3 indicators that USFS is already monitoring under the existing program:
Presence/abundance of pine marten
Abundance of Colorado River cutthroat trout.
1 Based on the “Desired Conditions” listed for MIS in the SJPL DLMP (USDI and USDA
2007) there are at least 37 indicators identified in the monitoring framework (Appendix
6) that are strongly relevant to monitoring the “habitats with which the MIS are associated” and “the effects of management” on those habitats The MIS program could consider begin monitoring these indicators or, where monitoring is already occurring, simply track the data for the following indicators:
Relevant indicators for Abert’s squirrel in Ponderosa Pine Forests and Woodlands:
Density of human infrastructure (roads and trails)
Proportion of the landscape in each successional class
Unfragmented patches of greater than 50,000 acres
Relevant indicators for trout species in Upper and Lower Elevation Riparian, Aquatic and
Hydrograph with key aspects defined
Proportion of streams with reproducing trout
Presence of invasive species (noxious weeds) in riparian areas
Macroinvertebrate assemblage Animas River macroinvertebrates and chemistry
Number of river miles in PFC
Proportion of streams infected with whirling disease
Presence of beaver activity within potential habitat
Relevant indicators for American marten in Spruce-Fir and Cool-Moist Mixed Conifer Forests:
Density of human infrastructure impacts
Number and extent of forest types (mesic mixed conifer, spruce fir and forest openings/meadows)
Unfragmented patches of greater than 50,000 acres
Proportion of the landscape in each successional class
Relevant indicators for mountain bluebirds in Aspen and Ponderosa Pine Forests and
Number of snags per acre
Dispersed recreation impacts (Ponderosa Pine Forests and Woodlands)
Density of human infrastructure (roads, trails, etc.) (Ponderosa Pine Forests and
Woodlands; Montane Grasslands; Aspen Forests; Mixed Montane Shrublands; Dry Mixed Conifer Forests; Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands; and Semi-desert and Sagebrush Shrublands)
Reference: U.S Department of Interior (USDI) and U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2007 San Juan Public Lands Draft Land Management Plan; Draft Environmental Impact
Statement Vol 2 Draft Land Management Plan 293 pp.
STAND EXAMS AND FUELS MONITORING
Stand exams play a crucial role in guiding project-level decisions within specific areas of the planning zone each year, particularly in relation to commercial harvesting These assessments are most commonly conducted in Ponderosa Pine, Aspen, and Dry-Mixed Conifer forests The data gathered during these exams encompasses a range of factors, including age and growth metrics by diameter class, the prevalence of aspen in various vegetation types, snag density and diameter at breast height (dbh), as well as the counts, sizes, and heights of key understory species like Gambel oak, along with indications of insect infestations and diseases.
San Juan Public Lands specialists in ecology, forestry, and fuels actively monitor the impacts of restoration treatments, thinning, and both prescribed and wildland fires, focusing mainly on ponderosa pine forests The primary objective of this monitoring is to evaluate whether these treatments are effectively progressing toward established prescription goals and desired future conditions Data is collected based on the specific treatment to assess various ecological indicators.
plant community composition (including noxious weeds)
shrub composition, density, mortality and resprouting
Indicators that the current program could cover:
There are 14 indicators that USFS is already monitoring under the existing program:
Levels of insects and disease outside of endemic levels (Ponderosa Pine Forests and Woodlands; Spruce-Fir and Cool-Moist Mixed Conifer Forests, Pinyon-Juniper
Presence of ponderosa pine/gambel oak
Proportion of stands with mixed age classes
Acres of old growth (Ponderosa Pine Forests and Woodlands; Dry Mixed Conifer
Number of snags per acre (Ponderosa Pine Forests and Woodlands; Aspen Forests)
Proportion of the landscape in each successional class (Ponderosa Pine Forests and Woodlands; Spruce-Fir and Cool-Moist Mixed Conifer Forests; Dry Mixed Conifer Forests)
Presence and extent of Sudden Aspen Die-off (SAD)
Relative proportion of white fire and Douglas fir
1 Consider rolling up these indicators across sites within a focal system to obtain an indication of that system’s status within the planning area as a whole.
2 Consider modifying these methodologies to enhance the data’s usefulness for assessing the integrity of and impacts to these forest systems over the planning area as a whole, as well as over time.
INSECT AND DISEASE DETECTION FLIGHTS
Each year, the USFS Region 2 Gunnison Service Center conducts aerial detection flights during the summer and early fall to map insect and disease activity in forested areas These surveys aim to identify new outbreaks and monitor regions of specific concern regarding forest health.
During aerial surveys, observers document active areas by either sketching them on a map or utilizing a digital system equipped with touch screen and GPS technology The website highlights key aspects regarding the maps generated from these surveys.
“The data on these maps will only provide rough estimates of location, intensity and the resulting trend information for agents detectable from the air.
Many of the most destructive diseases are not represented on these maps because the agents are not detectable from aerial surveys;
The maps provided serve as a preliminary reference for assessing insect and disease activity, but it is essential to validate the information through on-site evaluations to confirm the specific location and causal agents involved.
Areas show locations where tree mortality or defoliation was apparent from the air Intensity of damage is variable and not all trees in shaded areas are dead or defoliated.”
Indicators that the current program could cover:
There are 4 indicators that USFS is already monitoring under the existing program:
Levels of insects and disease outside of endemic levels in Ponderosa Pine Forests and Woodlands; Spruce-Fir and Cool-Moist Mixed Conifer Forests; and Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands
Presence and extent of Sudden Aspen Die-off (SAD)
Reference: USDA Forest Service 2008 Rocky Mountain Region Forest Health Management
Website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/fhm/
The Land Health Assessment is a monitoring methodology employed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to evaluate the capability and suitability of grazing areas, facilitating permit renewal decisions while also assessing the impacts of various disturbances This program focuses on three key qualitative indicators: soil/site stability, hydrologic function, and the integrity of the biotic community, comparing values at a site to those at a reference site These methods have been rigorously field-tested across BLM lands Although the BLM Indicators of Rangeland Health Technical References are not currently utilized on U.S Forest Service lands within the San Juan Public Lands (SJPL), their potential application remains.