Final Report SJF Biodiversity Monitoring Framework Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .3 Project Goals and Uses Effectiveness Monitoring I INTRODUCTION A Project History and Purpose B Scope and Uses of the Report .6 C Acknowledgements .6 II EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING A Introduction/Uses B Goals and Objectives .9 C Methods .10 D Results 18 Project Scope .18 E Suggestions 27 Monitoring Methods, Status and Frequency 27 One Monitoring Framework for the San Juan Public Lands .45 Implementation/Next Steps 46 VI PARTICIPANTS AND ROLES .48 VII REFERENCES 49 FIGURES Excerpt from USFS monitoring guidance (USDA Forest Service 2007a) Process used to create, implement, and adapt the monitoring framework Scope of the project: San Juan Forest lands within the San Juan Planning Area Distribution of focal targets across San Juan Forest lands Intactness layer for the San Juan National Forest TABLES Monitoring framework format Sample integrity assessment Sample summary of integrity Examples of stresses and sources of stress Sample summary of stresses and sources Criteria used to inform prioritization of monitoring indicators Crosswalk of SJPL Major Vegetation Types and the SJF Monitoring Framework Project focal targets Summary of focal and nested targets for San Juan Forest Integrity summary 10 Summary of sources of stress to focal targets 11 Number of indicators and distribution of priorities, by focal target, for San Juan Forest 12 Distribution of focal targets by intactness category (in acres) 13 Crosswalk between focal targets for the USFS and BLM monitoring frameworks and the unified SJPL framework APPENDICES (Tabs) Executive Summaries from Phases I and II of the San Juan Planning for Biodiversity Model Project CD with Excel CAP Workbook for San Juan National Forest, reflecting Workshop Products and Methods Recommendations Focal Targets and Nested Targets Integrity Ranking Table Stress and Source of Stress Ranking Tables San Juan National Forest Monitoring Framework NatureServe/Colorado Natural Heritage Program Global Conservation Status Ranks Intactness Layer Methods and Results Unified SJPL Monitoring Framework for Indicators Citation: Oliver, A., M Kram, T Schulz, C Pague, and K Sochi 2008 San Juan Forest Biodiversity Monitoring Framework Project Prepared by The Nature Conservancy of Colorado 50pp Cover photos: Peggy Lyon, Colorado Natural Heritage Program and Ann Oliver, The Nature Conservancy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Goals and Uses The San Juan Forest Monitoring Framework Project (SJF Monitoring Framework Project) is “a cooperative planning project to identify and prioritize indicators for monitoring the long-term health and viability of species, plant communities and systems on the San Juan National Forest Lands.” This set of prioritized indicators is collectively referred to hereafter as the “SJNF monitoring framework” and is modeled on a similar framework produced for the BLM-managed lands within the San Juan Planning Area under the San Juan Planning for Biodiversity Model Project, Phase II 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: • The Conservancy brings over 50 years of scientific expertise related to conservation planning and has completed ecoregional assessments across the West The Conservancy will contribute expertise in evaluating the biodiversity of the planning area based on regional, ecoregional and local considerations and using the best available information The Conservancy will also gain information from the Forest Service that will contribute to improvement of Conservancy 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 • By considering biological information on local, landscape and regional scales, the Forest Service will be better able to identify appropriate land use decisions that will benefit all public interest on public land • Working together, the Conservancy and the Forest Service will stimulate efficient, effective and up-to-date planning which can result in the conservation and/or restoration of multiple species and habitats on public land • Successful elements of this joint process will be documented for potential application in other Forests and Grasslands Effectiveness Monitoring This report presents the results of a two-day workshop that the Conservancy facilitated with San Juan Public Lands resource specialists to develop a monitoring framework: a prioritized menu of indicators for monitoring the integrity of key ecological features on USFS-managed lands within the San Juan Planning Area The resulting monitoring framework, combined with the similar framework produced for BLM-lands within the planning area, can allow SJPL to strategically track biological resource health and can inform adaptive management efforts over the entire planning area Workshop participants identified key ecological features (“focal targets”) and the key species and communities (“nested targets”) that inhabit them on the San Juan Forest The focal targets are consistent with the “Major Vegetation Types” that the San Juan Public Lands Center has mapped for planning purposes and include the following: • • • • • • • • • • • • Alpine Spruce-Fir and Cool-Moist Mixed Conifer Forest Montane Grasslands Aspen Forests Mixed Montane Shrublands Dry Mixed Conifer Forests Pinyon - Juniper Woodlands Semi-desert and Sagebrush Shrublands Upper Elevation Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland Lower Elevation Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland Lakes and Isolated wetlands Fens Participants then identified indicators for assessing the integrity of these features; their current and desired condition; and the main impacts and risks affecting each feature Finally, participants assigned priorities to the indicators to develop the monitoring framework The resulting framework identifies a total of 139 potential indicators for major focal systems on the San Juan Forest Ranking indicators as Low, Medium, High or Very High priority, workshop participants assigned priority to indicators as follows: 25 (18%) Low, 38 (27%) Medium, 66 (47%) High, and 10 (7%) Very High We offer suggestions for implementing effectiveness monitoring We evaluated existing monitoring programs and their methods in order to assess the extent to which these programs can address the priority indicators in the framework For 120 out of the total 139 (86%) potential monitoring indicators identified in the framework, there is some existing data collection being carried out by USFS or partners which could either be applied directly or adapted to track the status of the indicators However, for 11 High or Very High priority indicators there are currently no direct monitoring efforts TNC suggests the Intactness Layer as an approach for measuring and tracking one of these: “Density of human infrastructure impacts.” In addition, we present a unified monitoring framework for the San Juan Public Lands as a whole, combining the high and very high priority indicators from the separate frameworks developed for BLM and USFS-administered lands Finally we suggest next steps include developing protocols and an implementation plan, as well as a data management system for tracking and reporting on priority indicators I INTRODUCTION A Project History and Purpose History The San Juan Public Lands Center (SJPLC) in Durango, Colorado is in the process of developing a land use plan to revise and replace the existing plans for the San Juan National Forest (SJNF) and the Columbine, Dolores and Pagosa Field Offices of the BLM As an input to this effort, in 2004 BLM asked The Nature Conservancy of Colorado (TNC) to develop a conservation assessment of the San Juan Public Lands (SJPL) planning area This conservation assessment, known as the San Juan Planning for Biodiversity Model Project (“the San Juan Project”), was completed in two phases (Kram et al 2005, Oliver et al 2006) The San Juan Project was established on September 20, 2004 under BLM’s National Assistance Agreement (AA) with The Nature Conservancy (Cooperative Agreement #DAA020211) The Executive Summary of Phases and can be found in Appendix and the full reports can be viewed online at http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/CO%20-%20San%20Juan%20Project One of the deliverables produced by the San Juan Project was a monitoring framework for the BLM-administered lands This product identified a prioritized menu of monitoring indicators that BLM could employ for monitoring the viability of biodiversity resources Based on the model of the monitoring framework produced for the BLM lands within the San Juan Public Lands, the San Juan National Forest and The Nature Conservancy entered into a Participating Agreement (No 07-PA-11021300-081) on September 4, 2007 (Appendix 2) to complete the San Juan Forest Biodiversity Monitoring Framework Purpose The SJF Monitoring Framework Project is “a cooperative planning project to identify and prioritize indicators for monitoring the long-term health and viability of species, plant communities and systems on the San Juan National Forest lands.” This set of prioritized indicators is collectively referred to hereafter 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: • The Conservancy brings over 50 years of scientific expertise related to conservation planning and has completed ecoregional assessments across the West The Conservancy will contribute expertise in evaluating the biodiversity of the planning area based on regional, ecoregional and local considerations and using the best available information The Conservancy will also gain information from the Forest Service that will contribute to improvement of Conservancy 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 • By considering biological information on local, landscape and regional scales, the Forest Service will be better able to identify appropriate land use decisions that will benefit all public interest on public land • • Working together, the Conservancy and the Forest Service will stimulate efficient, effective and up-to-date planning which can result in the conservation and/or restoration of multiple species and habitats on public land Successful elements of this joint process will be documented for potential application in other Forests and Grasslands B Scope and Uses of the Report The scope of this report is the San Juan Public Lands planning area (“the San Juan Planning Area” or SJPA”) The primary focus of the report is on the USFS-administered lands within the planning area Components of this report can help USFS meet its mandates to consider biological resources and ecological values through land use planning, as specified in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the National Forest Management Act (36 CFR 219) A primary use of the report is to inform and support the decisions that the San Juan Public Lands will make in the San Juan Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS) with information based on scientific data and analyses This information will allow those decisions to reflect the best available inventories, field based data and observations, and peer reviewed literature Components of this report can inform the development of Alternatives, Desired Conditions, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences chapters of the RMP/EIS, as well as the creation of monitoring and activity plans The products in this report also have post-plan usefulness The report presents the results of a two-day workshop in which SJPL resource specialists and TNC biologists identified and prioritized key ecological attributes and appropriate indicators The resulting monitoring framework, combined with a similar framework produced previously for BLM-administered lands within the planning area can allow SJPL to strategically track biological resource health, and inform adaptive management efforts over the entire planning area C Acknowledgements The Nature Conservancy would like to recognize numerous individuals for their help in the formation of this partnership and the creation of this report Special thanks to Mark Stiles, San Juan Forest Supervisor/Public Lands Manager, for his continuing support of such cooperative efforts, and to Gary Thrash and Thurman Wilson for their leadership in developing this agreement, and their guidance and frank feedback in all phases of the project Thanks to Jeff Redders for his thorough review and input in preparation for the January and 9, 2008 workshop and many thanks to all the San Juan Public Lands resource specialists who made that workshop a success with their participation and in-depth knowledge of the resources they manage Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) ecologists Peggy Lyon, Renee Rondeau, and Stephanie Neid contributed invaluable on-the-ground knowledge, ecological expertise and data The Nature Conservancy’s David Gann and Tim Sullivan provided support and review Lastly, thanks to the core TNC team including Mike Babler, Megan Kram, Diana McDonald, Ann Oliver, Chris Pague, Terri Schulz, and Kei Sochi for managing the project, designing and conducting the Monitoring Framework Workshop and compiling and writing this report II EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING A Introduction/Uses Through a two-day workshop, San Juan Public Lands and TNC staff worked together to create a monitoring framework using a Conservancy-developed process called “Conservation Action Planning” (CAP) The purpose of the monitoring framework is to provide the basis for effectiveness monitoring and adaptive management The monitoring framework can help USFS meet its mandate to address biological resources and ecological values, as well as monitoring, through land use planning These requirements are specified in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA)(36 CFR 219) and in the 1982 USFS Planning Rule, under which the San Juan National Forest is completing its current forest plan revision (USDI and USDA 2007) Specifically, the monitoring framework will help ensure the Forest Service’s conformance with the following: • • Requirement to provide for plant and animal diversity in land management plans, per U.S Code 1604(g) National Forest System Land and Resource Management Plans “The regulations shall include, but not be limited to… (3) specifying guidelines for land management plans developed to achieve the goals of the Program which (B) provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives, and within the multiple-use objectives of a land management plan adopted pursuant to this section, provide, where appropriate, to the degree practicable, for steps to be taken to preserve the diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the region controlled by the plan; (C) insure research on and (based on continuous monitoring and assessment in the field) evaluation of the effects of each management system to the end that it will not produce substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land ” Requirements for diversity and viability per the 1982 USFS Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) o Sec 219.19 Fish and wildlife resource “Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area.” o Sec 219.26 Diversity “Forest planning shall provide for diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species consistent with the overall multiple-use objectives of the planning area Such diversity shall be considered throughout the planning process.” o Sec 219.27 Management requirements “(a) Resource protection All management prescriptions shall… (5) Provide for and maintain diversity of plant and animal communities to meet overall multiple-use objectives…(6) Provide for adequate fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations of existing native vertebrate species….(8) Include measures for preventing the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for threatened and endangered species…” • Requirement to monitor per the 1982 USFS Planning Rule (36 219.12(k)) “At intervals established in the plan, implementation shall be evaluated on a sample basis to determine how well objectives have been met and how closely management standards and guidelines have been applied Monitoring requirements identified in the forest plan shall provide for… (4) A description of the following monitoring activities: (i) the actions, effects, or resources to be measured, and the frequency of 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 2008 Planning Rule: • • Monitoring requirements per the 2008 USFS Planning Rule Section 219.6 (Evaluations and Monitoring) “Monitoring results must be evaluated annually….The plan must describe the monitoring program for the plan area….The plan-monitoring program shall take into account…monitoring of the degree to which on-the-ground management is maintaining or making progress toward the desired conditions and objectives for the plan….” Ecological sustainability requirements per the 2008 USFS Planning Rule Section 219.10 (Sustainability) “Sustainability, for any unit of the NFS, has three interrelated and interdependent elements: Social, economic, and ecological….The overall goal of the ecological element of sustainability is to provide a framework to contribute to sustaining ecological systems by providing appropriate ecological conditions to support diversity of native plant and animal species in the plan area….Plan components must establish a framework to provide the characteristics of ecosystem diversity in the plan area.” Importantly, the monitoring framework also provides a useful basis for adaptive management As NFMA describes, “The concept of adaptive management has been a component of Forest Service planning rules dating back to 1995 where it was identified as a cornerstone of ecosystem management.” Furthermore, NFMA recognizes land management planning as “one stage in an adaptive cycle of planning for management of NFS lands.” (36 CFR 219) It would be difficult, if not impossible, to manage adaptively without a clear set of objectives and a monitoring framework for assessing progress toward those objectives 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 Framework to Support Land Management Planning (USDA Forest Service 2007a), which is designed to help the USFS meet its monitoring requirements The guidance describes the overarching aim of Land Management Planning as follows, “Based on [the National Forest Management Act], the overall desired condition is that NFS lands contribute to sustaining social and economic systems within the plan area and provide a framework to contribute to sustaining ecological systems to support the diversity of native plant and animal species in the plan area” (emphasis added) The SJNF monitoring framework supports this aim by identifying ecologically-related monitoring priorities and by providing a scientific basis for desired conditions and objectives To help ensure that National Forests and Grasslands address all components of sustainability – ecological, social, and economic, the guidance suggests that Land Management Plans include desired conditions for at least six different “themes” and associated “sub-elements” as appropriate (Figure 1) As shown in the figure, the SJNF monitoring framework informs all three ecological themes and associated sub-elements for the San Juan LMP The FS/TNC monitoring framework most directly addresses the Conservation of Biological Diversity theme and associated sub-elements Figure 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 also indirectly supports the social and economic themes of maintenance and enhancement of social benefits, and maintenance and enhancement of economic benefits For example, the SJNF monitoring framework directly addresses species and vegetation diversity; these ecological elements, when managed for their persistence, can provide for a diversity of opportunities and settings (a sub-element of social benefits), and can help ensure the Forest’s or Grassland’s continued ability to support or provide a variety of goods and services (a sub-element of economic benefits) B Goals and Objectives The purpose of the monitoring framework is to provide the basis for effectiveness monitoring and adaptive management With this purpose in mind, the monitoring framework seeks to identify the monitoring priorities that will enable the Forest Service and partners to assess whether they are successfully: • • • Maintaining or improving resource health at appropriate scales; Minimizing impacts to resource health; and Achieving objectives 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; • Incorporate current monitoring efforts; • 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 C Methods The process used to generate the monitoring framework is shown in Figure The Conservancy facilitated a two-day workshop with San Juan Public Lands participants to develop the framework The Conservancy brought draft materials to the workshop for participants to review and modify as necessary After the workshop, the Conservancy provided draft results to the agencies for review and has incorporated that feedback into this final report The process is based on the Conservancy’s Conservation Action Planning (CAP) methodology (The Nature Conservancy 2005) The Conservancy uses this methodology organization-wide with local, national and international partners to determine conservation and restoration priorities in locales ranging from small (i.e., hundreds of acres) to large areas (i.e., millions of acres) The basic process is to identify the key ecological systems, plant communities and species within the planning area and then to systematically assess the integrity (i.e., health) of, and anticipated impacts to, these features These assessments then inform participants’ identification of strategic actions and/or monitoring priorities The monitoring priorities are ultimately arranged to build a framework in the format shown in Table Table Monitoring framework format Focal Target Target name Indicator Indicator name Priority Very High, High, Med, or Low Status Ongoing, Planned, or No Plan Methods Description (actual or potential) Frequency & timing Description (actual or potential ) Who monitors Organization (actual or likely) This table is part of a larger Excel workbook (“the workbook”) in which TNC documents the entire CAP process for any given planning area For the SJF Monitoring Framework Project, we used the workbook, but also completed some portions of the workshop in separate documents The Conservancy added all information from the workshops into the workbook, and is providing USFS with a digital version as part of this report (Appendix 2) 10 • Sketches and photos of the fen Upon determination of a true fen, a CNHP botanist then visited the fen to compile a complete species list and photos Indicators that the current program may cover: The monitoring framework includes indicators that the fen inventory may already be collecting: • Proportion of fens with presence of ditching, historic mines, trails, roadcuts or other disturbances that impact the hydrologic flow • Number of high quality iron fens • Proportion of fens with acceptable fen condition • Number of fens Suggestions: Consider incorporating integrity into the number of fens indicator by looking at number or proportion of fens that are "functional" based on fen inventory criteria Reference: San Juan Public Lands 2005 San Juan Public Lands Fen Handbook SJPL CANADA LYNX ASSESSMENT For the Canada Lynx recovery effort, TNC understands that USFS, BLM, and DOW have established a coordinated assessment of habitat and a monitoring program Indicators that the current program may cover: The monitoring framework includes two indicators that the Canada Lynx monitoring program may already be collecting: • Lynx habitat location and quality • Lynx linkage habitat amount and quality Reference: Claar, J., T Bertram, R Naney, N Warren, R Ruediger 2003 Wildlife linkage areas: An integrated approach for Canada Lynx ICOET 2003 Proceedings Road Ecology Center, University of California, Davis UNCOMPAGRE FRITTILARY RECOVERY PLAN MONITORING TNC understands that USFS participates in monitoring for this butterfly using methods described in the recovery plan (USFWS 1994) Indicators that the current program may cover: The monitoring framework includes indicator that these methods may already be collecting: • Presence of Uncompahgre fritillary Reference: U.S Fish and Wildlife Service 1994 Uncompahgre Fritillary Butterfly Recovery Plan Denver, Colorado 20pp 37 Partner Programs ANIMAS RIVER STAKEHOLDERS GROUP The Animas River Stakeholders Group’s (ARSG) mission is to “improve water quality and habitats in the Animas River through a collaborative process designed to encourage participation from all interested parties According to their website, the “Stakeholder process involves the extensive collection and analysis consolidation of the chemical, physical, and biological components necessary to assess the impacts of contamination on aquatic life and habitat throughout the Basin.“(http://old.waterinfo.org/arsg/index.html) The Group coordinates collection of water chemistry and some macroinvertebrate data at over 1400 sites in the following areas: Upper Animas River, Lower Animas Watershed, Cement Creek Watershed, Mineral Creek Watershed, Springs and Seeps The database organizes data gathered since 1990 by partners including agencies, stakeholders, and private corporations Indicators that the current program may cover: • Animas River macroinvertebrates and chemistry Reference: Animas River Stakeholders website at http://old.waterinfo.org/arsg/index.html BIODIVERSITY SCORECARD FOR COLORADO A new monitoring effort, called A Biodiversity Scorecard for Colorado (“Scorecard”), is being launched by CNHP and TNC (CNHP 2007) and currently undergoing peer review Under this project CNHP has developed a methodology for tracking the status of several “matrix-forming” (Anderson et al 1999) ecological systems, and rare species, across Colorado The Scorecard provides a measure of the status of each species or system based on that element’s abundance and quality; current and potential impacts; and protection/land management status (Decker et al 2007) The Scorecard aims to measure status by 1) using protocols that are “repeatable over time and scalable;” 2) using measures that are pertinent to conservation and management entities The intention is to update the Scorecard periodically in order to capture changes in the conservation status of target elements The goal is for this monitoring program to be repeatable, ongoing, and data/field based It should be a useful set of methods and measures for USFS to incorporate and/or adapt for its monitoring efforts As of this report, the draft Scorecard provides measures for the following systems and species known to occur within the San Juan Public Land: Ecological Systems: • Alpine Tundra • Aspen • Ponderosa Pine • Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper • Oak-Mixed Mountain Shrub • Sagebrush 38 • Spruce-fir Animal Species: • Boreal toad pop • Northern leopard frog • Gunnison sage grouse • Uncompahgre fritillary • Lynx • Longnose leopard lizard Rare Plant Species: • Astragalus deterior • Astragalus naturitensis • Cryptantha gypsophila • Draba graminea • Draba smithii • Hackelia gracilenta • Ipomopsis polyantha • Lesquerella pruinosa • Machaeranthera coloradoensis • Physaria pulvinata • Townsendia glabella • Erigeron kachinensis • Puccinellia parishii • Penstemon breviculus • Astragaulus iodopetalus • Astragalus cronquistis Indicators that the current program may monitor: The monitoring framework includes 21 indicators that are either being assessed by the Scorecard program or could be assessed by using or adapting the metrics and/or methodology of the program These indicators include: • Presence of rare plants in focal systems • Distribution and abundance of focal systems • Intactness of focal systems • Landuse around focal systems Suggestions: Use Scorecard assessments for rare plant species to track status of G1 and G2 species that occur exclusively or primarily within the San Juan Planning Area Consider adapting Scorecard species assessment methodology to develop similar Planning Area wide assessments for key species on San Juan National Forest Lands Consider applying Scorecard methodology for assessing the conservation status of ecological systems to develop similar assessments for matrix-forming systems across the San Juan Planning Area 39 Reference: Decker, K, G Doyle, C Gaughan, R Rondeau, M Fink, and A Lavender 2007 A Biodiversity Scorecard for Colorado Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE MONITORING Many species occurring on the San Juan National Forest are monitored by the Colorado Division of Wildlife This existing information can be used as provided or modified for use by the USFS Indicators that the current program may cover: The monitoring framework includes 10 indicators that CDOW may already monitor or may already partner with USFS to monitor: • Presence of Gunnison prairie dogs in Semi-desert and Sagebrush Shrublands • Abundance of ptarmigan • Abundance of snowshoe hare • Presence/abundance of pine marten • Proportion of streams infected with whirling disease in both Upper and Lower Elevation Riparian, aquatic and Wetland areas • Proportion of streams with reproducing trout in both Upper and Lower Elevation Riparian, aquatic and Wetland areas • Abundance of Colorado River cutthroat trout • Presence/abundance of rare warmwater fish • Presence of invasive animals • Abundance of boreal toad DOLORES RIVER DIALOGUE The Dolores River Dialogue (DRD) is “a collaborative group of conservation, water management, land management, recreational and governmental representatives working since January of 2004 to explore opportunities to manage McPhee Reservoir to improve downstream ecological conditions while honoring water rights, protecting agricultural and municipal water supplies and the continued enjoyment of rafting and fishing.” (http://ocs.fortlewis.edu/drd/) The DRD has produced a Core Science Report (DRD 2005) and Correlation Report (DRD 2006) identifying historic flows and key ecological aspects of the natural hydrologic regime of the downstream reaches of the Dolores River Indicators that the current program may cover: • Hydrographs with key aspects defined for lower elevation riparian, aquatic and wetland Reference: Dolores River Dialogue website at http://ocs.fortlewis.edu/drd/ USGS GAGE STATIONS The United States Geologic Survey (USGS) has stream gage stations across the planning area Indicators that the current program may provide data for: • Hydrographs with key aspects defined (both Upper and Lower Elevation Riparian Aquatic, and Wetland areas) 40 Suggestions: Consider developing measures of hydrologic integrity for key rivers Reference: USGS National Water Information System Web Interface at http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/co/nwis Suggested New Monitoring The monitoring framework (Appendix 6) shows that one High and one Very High priority indicator are not currently monitored at any level, and that for nine High priority indicators, there is Data Available, but no specific monitoring effort in place for tracking the actual indicator Because all of these indicators were judged by workshop participants to be priority indicators of resource health and impacts, we suggest that SJNF focus resources on developing methods and/or partnerships to monitor these indicators: Not Monitored The following High and Very High priority indicators are currently Not Monitored: • Presence of old growth Pinyon-Juniper According to participants, this is a High priority indicator of Pinyon-Juniper system condition Although the SJPL Draft Land Management Plan (USDI and USDA 2007) states that old growth Pinyon Juniper should not decrease in acreage, there is no baseline According to workshop participants, there may be a proposal by BLM and USGS to assess this indicator with a baseline inventory • Dispersed recreation impacts in Ponderosa Pine Forests and Woodlands Participants explained that, while official routes are mapped, there is neither a current effort to nor a method for mapping and monitoring “un-official” dispersed routes Use of these routes has the potential to impact the availability and/or use of big game winter range on public lands Because elk is a Management Indicator Species, such impacts are of particular concern Data Available There is some Data Available, but no specific monitoring effort in place for nine High and Very High priority indicators For four of these, developing a baseline and monitoring them over time and at the plan level would require a straightforward GIS analysis of the most appropriate vegetation, landcover map, and/or remote imagery These include: • Land use within and around Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodlands and Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands • Acres of Alpine • Proportion of wetlands and isolated lakes with presence of ditching, historic mines, trails, roadcuts or other disturbance that impact hydrologic flow The remaining five High and Very High priority indicators for which there is Data Available, but no actual monitoring is occurring may require more sophisticated approaches to develop adequate means of measuring status and trends of these indicators • Density of human infrastructure impacts (Alpine and Montane Grasslands) • Hydrographs with key aspects defined (Upper and Lower Elevation Riparian Aquatic, and Wetland areas) • Acres Compacted by snowmobile use in the Alpine 41 Below, we suggest one potential methodology for developing a baseline and tracking trends for one of these: Density of Human Infrastructure Impacts MONITORING DENSITY OF HUMAN INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS Participants identified density of human infrastructure impacts from sources including permitted uses (e.g oil and gas development) and non-permitted uses (e.g motorized and non-motorized recreation) as an indicator for both integrity and impacts for most of the focal targets considered A method for assessing and tracking fragmentation resulting from human infrastructure could contribute to the understanding and monitoring of cumulative impacts to these systems Assessment of cumulative effects is one of the criteria for making plan level decisions This measure is best developed through a GIS analysis of mappable infrastructure For the SJF Monitoring Framework Project, TNC developed a baseline analysis of an intactness index that is one approach to monitoring this indicator During the workshop, participants noted errors with the “Cumulative Impact Layer” presented at the workshop Those errors have been addressed and the updated and renamed “Intactness Layer” is shown in Figure The distribution of focal targets by intactness class was re-calculated (Table 12) and used to rank the current status of the Density of Human Infrastructure Impacts indicator for each focal target (Appendix 4), except for the Upper and Lower Elevation Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland targets The intactness for these riparian targets was ranked solely by participants’ consensus assessment Table 12 Distribution of focal targets by intactness class (in acres) Focal Target Alpine Intact 136,376 High Intactness Medium Intactness Low Intactness Very Low Intactness 33,700 2,145 154 28 79% 20% 1% 0% 0% 112,619 129,527 29,584 2,188 144 41% 47% 11% 1% 0% 32,413 33,149 6,662 1,211 12 44% 45% 9% 2% 0% 3,011 3,899 555 189 20 39% 51% 7% 2% 0% 66,355 105,126 33,727 3,546 93 32% 50% 16% 2% 0% 39,564 57,268 24,887 2,911 243 32% 46% 20% 2% 0% 9,777 19,605 4,726 816 11 28% 56% 14% 2% 0% Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodland 45,866 129,816 57,092 6,254 199 19% 54% 24% 3% 0% Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland * 6,238 12,891 5,235 1,427 47 24% 50% 20% 6% 0% Semi-desert and Sagebrush Shrubland Spruce-Fir and Cool-Moist Mixed Conifer Forest 3,123 10,321 5,765 1,152 117 15% 50% 28% 6% 1% 371,835 258,038 49,846 2,536 55% 38% 7% 0% 0% Aspen Forest Dry Mixed Conifer Forest Lake and Isolated Wetlands Mixed Montane Shrubland Montane Grassland Pinyon-Juniper Woodland TOTAL 172,403 274,063 73,448 7,674 208,846 124,873 34,936 239,227 25,838 20,477 682,256 42 TOTAL 827,178 793,340 220,224 22,384 916 44% 43% 12% 1% 0% 1,864,04 * Analysis includes only terrestrial impacts and not aquatic impacts (e.g., flows) ** Analysis does not include impacts of fire and timber management activities Data source: R2 Veg (SJNF 2008) reclassified and Intactness Layer (v20080805) (Figure 5) The Intactness Layer (Figure 5) was developed by assigning weights and ”distance decay functions” (Tuffly and Comer 2005a, Tuffly and Comer 2005b, Decker 2006) to mapped human infrastructure, including agriculture, development, oil and gas wells, urban recreational areas, ski areas, closed roads, open roads, primary and secondary roads, trails and transmission lines (See Appendix for methods and data sources) Weights (Appendix 8) were assigned based on expert judgement about the relative severity of the impact associated with each type of infrastructure A distance decay class (Abrupt, Moderate/Abrupt, Moderate, Gradual) and equation (Appendix 8) was then assigned to each type of infrastructure to reflect a decrease in impact (based on the assigned weight) with increasing distance from that infrastructure We then mapped each type of infrastructure with its distance decay function onto the map of focal targets created by reclassifying the R2 Veg data (San Juan National Forest 2008) The distance decay equation calculates an “impact” value for each cell in the map The possible range of those values was broken into five classes: Intact, High Intactness, Medium Intactness, Low Intactness or Very Low Intactness (Appendix 8) The number of cells in each class for a given focal target was then tallied to calculate the acreage of a given focal target that falls into each intactness class These calculations, by focal target, appear in a Table 12 43 Figure Intactness Index for the San Juan National Forest 44 It is important to note that these acreages not represent a fine scale, highly precise, nor exhaustive measurement of impacts There is certainly error associated with interpretation of satellite imagery, cross walking vegetation classifications, and the actual distance of impact from a given type of infrastructure Also, there will often be infrastructure and impacts that have not yet been mapped However, the acreages in Figure provide an index of the degree to which a given focal target has been affected, cumulatively, by mapped human infrastructure In this way, this “intactness index” provides a relatively rapid means of tracking changes in intactness/cumulative impacts over time, Indicators that the proposed approach could address: • Density of human infrastructure in the Ponderosa Pine Woodlands and Forest; Alpine; Spruce-Fir and Cool-Moist Mixed Conifer Forests; Montane Grasslands; Aspen Forest; Mixed Montane Shrublands; Dry Mixed Conifer Forest; Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands; Semi-desert and Sagebrush Shrublands; and Upper and Lower Elevation Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland • Unfragmented patches of greater than X acres of Ponderosa Pine Woodlands and Forest; Alpine; Spruce-Fir and Cool-Moist Mixed Conifer Forests; Aspen Forest; Dry Mixed Conifer Forest; and Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands • Landuse within and around Ponderosa Pine Forests; Mixed Montane Shrublands; Dry Mixed Conifer Forests; Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands and Semi-desert and Sagebrush Shrublands One Monitoring Framework for the San Juan Public Lands In Appendix we provide a suggestion for a unified San Juan Public Lands Monitoring Framework This unified framework presents 14 Very High and 52 High ranked indicators which pertain to the whole San Juan Public Lands We generated the SJPL Monitoring Framework by joining the BLM monitoring framework produced for BLM-administered lands in the SJPL under the Planning for Biodiversity Model Project Phase II (Oliver 2006) with the SJNF monitoring framework presented in this report (Appendix 6) In order to combine these two frameworks into one, we kept the following focal targets and their indicators “as is” and with the same priorities they were assigned in the original monitoring framework (indicated in parentheses): • • • • • • • • Lakes and Isolated Wetlands (USFS) Lower Elevation: Sagebrush Shrublands (BLM) Higher Elevation Sagebrush Shrublands (USFS) Semi-desert Shrublands (BLM) Aspen Forests (USFS) Dry Mixed Conifer Forests (USFS) Semi-desert Grasslands (BLM) Canyonlands (BLM) 45 However, we combined the indicators for the remaining focal targets across BLM and USFS lands, as shown in Table 13 Table 13 Crosswalk between focal targets for the USFS and BLM Monitoring Frameworks and the unified SJPL Framework (Appendix 9) USFS Focal Target Upper Elevation Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland BLM Focal Target Higher Elevation: Montane Riparian and Aquatic Lower Elevation Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland Lower Elevation: Montane Riparian and Aquatic Alpine Montane Grasslands Spruce-fir and Cool Moist Mixed Conifer Forest Higher Elevation: Alpine Higher Elevation: Subalpine Grasslands Lower Elevation: Ponderosa /Warm Dry Mixed Conifer Lower Elevation: Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands Lower Elevation: Mountain Shrublands Higher Elevation: Subalpine Forests Unified SJPL Focal Target Upper Elevation Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland (USFS and BLM) Lower Elevation Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland (USFS and BLM) Alpine (USFS and BLM) Montane Grasslands (USFS and BLM) Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodland (USFS and BLM) Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands (USFS and BLM) Mixed Montane Shrublands (USFS and BLM) Spruce-fir and Cool Moist Mixed Conifer Forest (USFS and BLM) Fens Higher Elevation: Fens Fens (USFS and BLM) Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodland Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands Mixed Montane Shrublands In most cases, the original assigned priorities were consistent between the BLM and USFS frameworks, and therefore did not change for the unified SJPL Monitoring Framework For example, the Montane Shrublands indicator: “Presence of invasive species in Mixed Montane Shrublands” ranked High for USFS lands and High for BLM lands However, a few indicators did rank differently between USFS and BLM frameworks These were in the combined targets of Alpine (USFS and BLM), Montane grasslands (USFS and BLM), Ponderosa Pine (USFS and BLM), and Upper and Lower Riparian (USFS and BLM) For these, only indicators that ranked High or Very High in the USFS framework were included in the combined framework The rank they carried in the USFS framework was the rank assigned to them in the combined framework Our reasoning in assigning the ranks this way was that the USFS-administered lands encompass the majority of the acreage for these focal targets Implementation/Next Steps The monitoring framework table presented in Appendix reflects the information and priorities shared by SJPL staff who participated in the Monitoring Framework Workshop, as well as some suggestions for methods and frequency provided by participants and TNC While this table lays out a menu of prioritized indicators and suggested methods, it should not be considered a monitoring plan ready for implementation We would suggest several next steps in order to develop and implement such a plan: USFS should review and where necessary refining portions of the monitoring framework (Appendix 6) Particular attention should be paid to evaluating existing monitoring 46 programs and how they might be adapted to address high priority indicators, and to reconcile this and/or the unified SJPL monitoring framework (Appendix 9) with the Monitoring Strategy in the SJPL Draft Land Management Plan (USDI and USDA 2007) Based on the refined Monitoring Framework, USFS should consider developing a more detailed plan for implementing high priority monitoring across the San Juan Forest (or across the entire San Juan Planning Area) Such a “monitoring implementation plan” should specify: • List of priority indicators that will be monitored, linked to measureable statements of desired condition, • Monitoring protocols (metrics or criteria, timing, frequency field methods and/or data sources, etc.) that will be used to collect data and assess each indicator, • A monitoring schedule (perhaps on a year timeline), • Responsible staff, partners, etc • Budget, and a • Data management and reporting plan USFS should consider working with partners to collect the data necessary to establish the baseline status and to ensure continued collection of monitoring data for each indicator identified within the “monitoring implementation plan.” If not already available, USFS and/or SJPL should consider establishing and maintaining a data management system to house primary data collected by USFS on priority indicators Such a system could facilitate tracking the trends and periodically reporting the status of each priority indicator For indicators tracked by partners (e.g Presence/abundance of G1 and G2 plants collected by CNHP), USFS should not duplicate storing that data, but should periodically identify and report the current status and/or trend for those indicators 47 VI PARTICIPANTS AND ROLES Participant Title The Nature Conservancy in Colorado Mike Babler Fire Initiative Program Manager Dave Gann Megan Kram Western Colorado Program Manager Public Lands Program Manager Diana McDonald Grants Specialist Ann Oliver Southern San Juan Mountains Project Director Chris Pague Senior Conservation Ecologist Terri Schulz Conservation Ecologist Kei Sochi GIS Manager Colorado Natural Heritage Program Peggy Lyon Botanist Stephanie Neid Ecologist Renee Rondeau Director BLM/USFS San Juan Public Lands Center David Baker Recreation/Wilderness Program Bob Ball Natural Resource Specialist Mark Ball Wildlife Program Manager Sara Brinton Ecologist Gretchen Fitzgerald Forester/Wildlife Cara Gildar Ecologist - Dolores Dave Gehrhardt Fisheries Biologist Mike Johnson Assistant Ctr Mgr - Renewable Res Review and input of initial Draft CAP Review and input of initial Draft CAP Managed subcontract and provided project oversight Review and input of Draft CAP Hydrologist Strategic Planner Regional Planner Reviewer Reviewer Wildlife Biologist Columbine RD/FO Wildlife Program Ecologist - Dolores Gary Thrash BLM Planning & Environmental Coordinator Rangeland Mgmt Program Leader Assistant Center Mgr Kay Zillich USFS Region Gary Patton Pam Skeels Provided input and consultation on FRCC, and review of final framework Provided project oversight Co-authored Effectiveness Monitoring Codesigned and co-facilitated workshops Liaison with USFS Region Planning staff Managed accounting, budgeting and contracting under Participating Agreement Drafted and managed Participating Agreement; coordinated and co-wrote final report; liaison with San Juan Public Lands staff Co-facilitated workshop and contributed input and review on monitoring methods Co-authored Effectiveness Monitoring Codesigned and co-facilitated workshops Completed and co-authored Intactness Layer all GIS work and supporting analyses Workshop participant Workshop participant Workshop participant Workshop participant Workshop participant Workshop participant Provided input on monitoring Workshop participant Provided leadership, support and guidance Workshop participant Workshop participant Workshop participant Provided input on monitoring Workshop participant Provided leadership, support, guidance, and review Workshop participant Workshop participant Provided leadership, support, guidance, and review Workshop Participant Kristin Philbrook Chris Schultz Leslie Stewart Mark Tucker Thurman Wilson Role 48 VII REFERENCES Animas River Stakeholders Group website at http://old.waterinfo.org/arsg/index.html Andelt, W., G White, P Schnurr, and A Seglund 2003 Inventory of white-tailed and Gunnison’s prairie dogs in Colorado and Utah Colorado State University, Colorado Division of Wildlife and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Grand Junction, Colorado Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Technical Reference 1734-15: A user guide to assessing proper functioning condition and the supporting science for lotic areas 1999 Prichard Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Technical Reference 1734-16: A user guide to assessing proper functioning condition and the supporting science for lentic areas 1999 Prichard Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Technical Reference TR 1734-6 rev Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health Available online at http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/techref.htm Claar, J., T Bertram, R Naney, N Warren, R Ruediger 2003 Wildlife linkage areas: An integrated approach for Canada Lynx ICOET 2003 Proceedings Road Ecology Center, University of California, Davis Colorado Natural Heritage Program 2005 Ecological System Descriptions and Viability Guidelines for Colorado Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado Available online at: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/projects/eco_systems/eco_systems.html Colorado Natural Heritage Program Website http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/heritage.html Decker, K 2006 Unpublished notes on development of landscape integrity GIS layer for CNHP/TNC Colorado Natural Heritage Program October, 2006 Decker, K, G Doyle, C Gaughan, R Rondeau, M Fink, and A Lavender 2007 A Biodiversity Scorecard for Colorado [DRAFT] Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO Dolores River Dialogue website at http://ocs.fortlewis.edu/drd/ Dolores River Dialogue 2005 Core Science Report for the Dolores River Dialogue J Siscoe., 133 pp Available online at http://ocs.fortlewis.edu/drd/resources.asp Dolores River Dialogue 2006 Draft Dolores River Dialogue Correlation Report: Summary of Hydrologic and Scientific Findings and Resulting Matrix Templates D Graf 62pp Available online at http://ocs.fortlewis.edu/drd/resources.asp 49 Kram, M., K Decker, M Dimmitt, D Gann, P Lyon, B Neely, C Pague, R Rondeau, K Sochi, and C Supples 2005 San Juan Planning for Biodiversity Model Project: Phase Report to BLM The Nature Conservancy of Colorado, Boulder, CO 31pp + appendices LANDFIRE (2007, January - last update).[Homepage of the LANDFIRE Project, U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S Department of Interior], [Online] Available online at http://www.landfire.gov/index.php [2007, February 8] Loeffler, C (ed.), 2001 Conservation plan and agreement for the management and recovery of the Southern Rocky Mountain population of the boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas), Boreal Toad Recovery Team 76 pp + appendices Mountain Studies Institute Fen Project website http://www.mountainstudies.org/Research/fenProject.htm Natural Resource Ecology Lab 2007 Colorado Ownership Management and Protection (COMaP) v.6 Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO NatureServe 2003 A Working Classification of Terrestrial Ecological Systems in the Coterminous United States International Terrestrial Ecological Systems Classification NatureServe, Arlington, VA 61 pp + appendices Available online at: http://www.natureserve.org/library/usEcologicalsystems.pdf Nehring, B 2007 Whirling Disease Investigations Federal Aid Project: F-237-R14 Unpublished report to the Colorado Division of Wildlife June 2007 53pp Oliver, A., K Decker, M Kram, A Lavender, P Lyons, R Rondeau, T Schulz, C Pague, and K Sochi 2006 San Juan Planning for Biodiversity Model Project: Phase II Report to BLM The Nature Conservancy of Colorado, Boulder, CO 62pp + appendices San Juan National Forest 2008 R2Veg Single Layer Geodatabase with joined attributes (7/11/2008) Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/sanjuan/projects/gis/index.shtml San Juan Public Lands 2005 San Juan Public Lands Fen Handbook The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 2005 Conservation Action Planning: Developing Strategies, Taking Action and Measuring Success at Any Scale Overview of Basic Practices Version: 17 June 2005 20pp Available online at http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/cap/index_html Tuffly, M., and P Comer 2005a Calculating Landscape Integrity: A Working model Draft of 04/19/2005 NatureServe, Boulder CO Available online at: http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/human.activity.index/li_data_4_19_2005.doc Tuffly, M and P Comer 2005b Example of landscape integrity from Puerto Rico NatureServe, Boulder CO Available online at: 50 http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/human.activity.index/PR%20example_Landscape %20Integrity.doc USDA Forest Service 2007a LMP Monitoring and Evaluation: A Monitoring Framework to Support Land Management Planning 41pp USDA Forest Service 2007b Invasive Species Action Plan: San Juan National Forest, San Juan Field Office, Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Thee Year Actions for the Prevention and Management of Invasive Species, FY2007-2009 16pp USDA Forest Service 2008 Rocky Mountain Region Forest Health Management Website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/fhm/ 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 Draft Land Management Plan 293 pp + appendices U.S Fish and Wildlife Service 1994 Uncompahgre Fritillary Butterfly Recovery Plan Denver, Colorado 20pp 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 USGS National Gap Analysis Program 2004 Provisional Digital Land Cover Map for the Southwestern United States Version 1.0.RS/GIS Laboratory, College of Natural Resources, Utah State University USGS National Water Information System Web Interface at http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/co/nwis 51 ... SUMMARY Project Goals and Uses The San Juan Forest Monitoring Framework Project (SJF Monitoring Framework Project) is “a cooperative planning project to identify and prioritize indicators for monitoring. .. the San Juan Forest Biodiversity Monitoring Framework Purpose The SJF Monitoring Framework Project is “a cooperative planning project to identify and prioritize indicators for monitoring the long-term... and monitoring, with lower integrity and higher impact ranks leading to higher priority objectives and monitoring For the SJF Monitoring Framework Project, workshop participants identified monitoring