Priority Setting for Whitebark Pine Conservation. Melissa Jenkins Flathead NF Silviculturist, CCE Hi5 Working Group U.S. Co-Chair, WPEF BOD

Transcription

1 Priority Setting for Whitebark Pine Conservation Melissa Jenkins Flathead NF Silviculturist, CCE Hi5 Working Group U.S. Co-Chair, WPEF BOD

2 Integrative and Adaptive Process Jenkins, et al. Pacific Northwest USFS Greater Yellowstone Area Range-Wide Strategy Bureau of Land Management WhitebarkPine Leadership Summit Plans In Development Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Crown of the Continent National Park Service

3 Range-Wide Strategy (2012) Strong reference document on WBP status, threats, and actions needed at six scales Entire range equally important regardless of land ownership and management policies Prioritization focused on restoration need Grizzly bear habitat and blister rust levels were top priorities

4 Range-Wide Strategy Prioritization Criteria By Spatial Scale Range Region Forest Landscape Stand Tree

5 Pacific Northwest, USFS (2008) Preserving genetic diversity at the eco-region scale is a unifying principle

6 Pacific Northwest, USFS (2008) Grizzly bear habitat areas given top priority Local experts used forest health and condition data (recent fires, mpbactivity, blister rust infection levels) to prioritize stand-level actions within Conservation Areas Prioritization included surveying in stands where health and condition were unknown Acknowledged that funding and feasibility is a limiting factor

7 Pacific Northwest, USFS (2008) Wilderness Areas or areas with similar designation excluded from prioritization process

8 Greater Yellowstone (2011) Prioritization driven by health and condition of whitebark communities Created WBP distribution map with cover type, size class and % canopy. Canopy damage from 2000 to Standardized and objective approach using health and condition data

9 Greater Yellowstone (2011) Protection and restoration actions prioritized separately Criteria used to refine prioritization include grizzly bear habitat, land ownership, access and management policies Ranked wilderness as low priority due to logistical challenges

10 Bureau of Land Management (2016) Adapted health and condition prioritization approach from GYA strategy Included climate change, distance from other WBP stands, accessibility, land management policies, past disturbance and threatened and endangered species habitat Protection and restoration actions prioritized separately

11 Categorized Summary of Prioritization Criteria Ecosystem Services Provided Valuable Assets Likelihood of Success Risk of Loss Existing Losses Priority Opportunity Feasibility

12 Ecosystem Services Provided Prioritize areas that provide the most important ecosystem services Watershed Protection-stabilize snowpack, regulate runoff Grizzly Bear Habitat- important food source for GB Tribal/First Nations Cultural Resources

13 Valuable Assets Prioritize protection of existing investments or valuable ecosystem functions Genetic Resources: Seed orchards, elite and plus trees, high genetic diversity areas, test plantations Watersheds with composition and structure that support middendensities needed by grizzly bears Native American traditional use and spiritual sites Whitebark pine plantations Mature, cone-producing trees/stands Recreation sites with whitebark pine

14 Likelihood of Success Prioritize areas when restoration efforts are most likely to be successful over the long term WBP likely to persist under future climate Elevations where whitebarkwill compete well Aspect, topography, soils conducive to survival and growth Good distribution/connectivity Genetic Refugia- Mahalovich research

15 Risk of Loss Prioritize areas that have a moderate/high risk of whitebark pine loss Mountain Pine Beetle-Hazard Rating Mod/High Wildfire- Crown Fire Potential High Insufficient Age Class Diversity- <25%- 35% small size classes Distance to Seed Source- >12 km Low WhitebarkBA-< 1000 cones /ha, <5 m2/ha

16 Existing Losses Prioritize areas where whitebark pine has been lost Mt pine beetle mortality- >3-10 trees per acre Blister rust mortality- > 50% % BR infection-> 75% Shade tolerant encroachment- >50% of the BA Ongoing mpb mortality- low priority

17 Opportunity Prioritize areas where existing conditions are conducive to accomplishing restoration objectives Recently burned areas- plant High elevation recreation sites including ski areas- education High BR mortality areas-promote regeneration opportunities

18 Feasibility Prioritize areas that are the most efficient use of limited restoration resources Reasonable Distance from Road or Trail Gentle or Moderate Terrain NEPA /Burn Plan Complete Funding Available Cost versus Benefit Land management policies Ownership

19 Questions that we will need to answer Are there additional criteria to consider? Should we incorporate scale into prioritization? Should the criteria be weighted by importance? If so, would weights differ by stakeholder? Should we leave feasibility criteria out until after all the other criteria have been evaluated? Should protection and restoration actions be prioritized separately?

20 Should Prioritize Criteria By Spatial Scale? Range Wide Strategy Example Range Wide GB Habitat, % BR Infection Region MPBMortality, Crown Fire Potential Landscape Core Area Scale? Stand Tree Forest Age Class Distribution, Connectivity, Change From HRV, Loss from Fire Landscape Structure, GB Habitat Needs, Management Direction, Planning Stage Access, MPB Hazard, Successional Status, BA of WBP, Distance to Seed Cone Production, Blister Rust Resistance

21 Should the criteria be weighted by importance? Would weights differ by stakeholder? Prioritization Item Weight Rating Score Grizzly Bear Habitat % BR Infection/Mortality Presence of High Value Assets MPB Mortality Loss from Stand Replacing Fire Future Climate Adaptability Age Class Distribution Score (weight x rating) 90 Core Area Prioritization- Broad Scale Example Criteria Definitions Grizzly Bear Habitat: Yes = 1; No = 0 Blister Rust: % infection > 90% or Mortality >50% = 2, % infection 50-89% or Mortality >25%-49% = 1 High Value Assets Yes = 1, No = 0 MPB Mortality: > 10 tpa= 2, 3-9 tpa= 1, 0-2 tpa= 0 Stand Replacement Fire: Yes = 1, No = 0 Future Climate Adaptability: Above 6800 elevation = 2, = 1, >6200 = 0 Age Class Distribution: >75% in mature = 2, >50% mature = 1, < 49% mature = 0

22 Should the criteria be weighted by importance? PNW Strategy, 2008

23 Should we leave feasibility criteria out until after all the other criteria have been evaluated? Ecosystem Services Provided Valuable Assets Likelihood of Success Risk of Loss Priority Existing Losses Opportunity Feasibility

24 Should protection and restoration actions be prioritized separately? Stand Damage Agents (Canopy) Protect Restore No current MPB activity 5 0 Low endemic levels of MPB activity 5 0 Increasing MPB activity 5 0 High epidemic levels of MPB activity 0 5 Low/decreasing MPB activity 0 5 Low to no MPB activity 0 5 WPBR nonexistent or incipient infection (0% 5%) 5 1 WPBR evident with branch cankers and occasional bole canker, 2 3 moderate limb mortality WPBR extensive mortality (tree or limb) in cone-bearing trees 0 5 and reproduction Root rot (any species) or twig beetles 3 1 Stand Damage Agent Score BLM Strategy, 2016

25 More questions that we will need to answer Strictly bottom up effort or should we establish regional/ agency priorities to inform the core area prioritization effort? Is the unit scale the appropriate level to do prioritization? If so, should all units in an area such as the GYA at a minimum use the same criteria? Should we minimize the # of criteria we consider to simplify the process? Focus on criteria that most can get data on?

26 The true meaning of life is to plant trees under whose shade you do not plan to sit. --Nelson Henderson