Application of the threat-based model framework in the BLM land health assessment and evaluation process in Oregon

2021·16.9 MB·English

by  Anthony, Molly

B U R E A U O F L A N D M A N A G E M E N T
Application of the Threat-Based Model Framework in the BLM Land Health Assessment and Evaluation
Application of the Threat-Based Model
Process in Oregon
Framework in the BLM Land Health
Technical Note 452
Assessment and Evaluation Process in Oregon
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Technical Note 452
April 2021
April 2021
Suggested citation:
Anthony, M., G. Frederick, and A. Sitz. 2021. Application of the threat-based model framework in the BLM land
health assessment and evaluation process in Oregon. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Oregon-Washington State Office, Portland, OR.
Disclaimer:
The mention of company names, trade names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use by the Federal Government.
Production services provided by:
Bureau of Land Management
National Operations Center Information and Publishing Services
P.O. Box 25047
Denver, CO 80225
BLM/OR/WA/PL-21/003+1792
Application of the Threat-Based Model
Framework in the BLM Land Health Assessment
and Evaluation Process in Oregon
Technical Note 452
Authors:
Molly Anthony
Bureau of Land Management Oregon-Washington State Office
Portland, OR
Glenn Frederick
Bureau of Land Management Oregon-Washington State Office
Portland, OR
Angela Sitz
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bend, OR
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
April 2021
N
O
G
E
R
O
N Acknowledgments
S I
S
E
C
O
R
P The authors thank the many individuals who participated in this pilot study. In particular, the authors
N
O
TI would like to thank BLM Lakeview District Office employees Kate Yates, Les Boothe, John Owens (now
A
U with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and Jami Ludwig; BLM Oregon State Office employees Chris Domschke
L
A
V (now with the Colorado State Office), Matthew Shirley, and Robert Pattison; Anthony Titolo from the BLM
E
D National Operations Center; Chad Boyd from the Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center; Lee Foster
N
A
T from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Jackie Cupples from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
N
ME and John O’Keeffe, a BLM permittee and landowner. Finally, we wish to thank Megan Creutzburg from
S
S the Institute for Natural Resources for helping us to get the report across the finish line.
E
S
S
A
H
T
L
A
E
H
D
N
A
L
M
L
B
E
H
T
N
K I
R
O
W
E
M
A
R
F
L
E
D
O
M
D
E
S
A
B
T-
A
E
R
H
T
E
H
T
F
O
N
O
TI
A
C
LI
P
P
A
ii TECHNICAL NOTE 452
A
P
P
L
IC
A
T
Contents IO
N
O
F
T
H
Abstract............................................................................................. iv E
T
H
Introduction..........................................................................................1 RE
A
T
Objectives and Scope.................................................................................3 -B
A
S
E
Methods .............................................................................................4 D
M
Pilot Study Location ..............................................................................4 O
D
E
L
Threat-Based Model Assessment Methods.........................................................4 F
R
A
Map Ecological States on Desktop.................................................................8 M
E
W
Verify and Refine Ecological State Map in the Field.............................................8 O
R
K
Identify Other Threats and Conservation Measures.............................................8 IN
T
H
BLM Land Health Assessment Methods............................................................8 E
B
L
M
Gather Plot Data..............................................................................8
L
A
Assess Standard 1: Upland Watershed Function................................................9 ND
H
Assess Standard 3: Ecological Processes ......................................................10 EA
L
T
Assess Standard 5: Native, Threatened, Endangered, and Locally Important Species............10 H A
S
S
Results and Discussion...............................................................................14 E
S
S
M
Threat-Based Model Assessment Results .........................................................14
E
N
T
BLM Land Health Assessment Results ............................................................16 A
N
D
Standard 1 ..................................................................................16 E
V
A
Standard 3 ..................................................................................16 LU
A
T
Standard 5 ..................................................................................17 IO
N
P
Next Steps in the Land Health Process............................................................23 R
O
C
Identify Causal Factors.......................................................................23 E
S
S
Identify Management Recommendations ....................................................23 IN
O
R
Implement Management Recommendations .................................................23 EG
O
N
Monitor Progress (Adaptive Management)....................................................24
Conclusions.........................................................................................25
Literature Cited......................................................................................27
TECHNICAL NOTE 452 iii
N
O
G
E
R
O
N Abstract
S I
S
E
C
O
R
P The land health evaluation is a process that Bureau of Land Management district office staffs use on
N
O
TI public rangelands to determine the health of the ecosystem and management interventions needed to
A
U maintain or improve the condition of renewable public resources. Many methodologies are used within
L
A
V the land health evaluation, and this report details a pilot study to explore the applicability and utility of
E
D incorporating the threat-based model approach into the land health evaluation process for a grazing
N
A
T allotment within Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Oregon. The threat-based
N
ME model approach uses simplified ecosystem models to identify and map primary threats and determine
S
S potential management interventions. The study team found that the threat-based model supported
E
S
S the findings from the BLM’s land health evaluation for the O’Keeffe allotment. The threat-based model
A
TH approach offered another line of evidence in assessing upland standards. It also proved to be a valuable
L
A
E tool for communicating with stakeholders, as it provided a spatial depiction of habitat condition and
H
D threats through maps and a framework to link threats to management actions. The BLM needs to further
N
LA apply and study this methodology, but there is potential to use the threat-based model to streamline
M
L the land health evaluation process and provide a consistent assessment framework across public and
B
HE private lands.
T
N
K I
R
O
W
E
M
A
R
F
L
E
D
O
M
D
E
S
A
B
T-
A
E
R
H
T
E
H
T
F
O
N
O
TI
A
C
LI
P
P
A
iv TECHNICAL NOTE 452
A
P
P
L
IC
A
T
Introduction IO
N
O
F
T
H
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Each set of standards and guidelines developed E
T
H
manages large areas of rangelands in Oregon by the BLM must combine the basic precepts R
E
A
and throughout the western United States with of physical function and biological health with T
-B
the goal of ensuring their health and long- relevant elements of law, such as those relating to A
S
E
term capacity to support multiple public uses. water quality and plant and animal populations D
M
Rangelands are healthy when ecological processes and communities. The BLM developed five O
D
E
are functioning properly to maintain the structure, standards that apply to public rangelands across L
F
organization, and activity of the system over time Oregon and Washington (BLM 1997): RA
M
(BLM 2001). Oregon rangelands encompass a E
• Standard 1. Watershed Function–Uplands: W
portion of the western Great Basin, which includes O
Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability RK
hgraobuitsaet) .f oThr Ge rheeaatletrh S oafg teh-eGsreo suasgee (bhreuresha fetecro ssaysgtee-ms rates, moisture storage, and stability that are IN TH
appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. E
and the sage-grouse populations they support B
L
M
is greatly threatened by invasive weeds, fire, and • Standard 2. Watershed Function–Riparian/ L
A
juniper encroachment. Wetland Areas: Riparian-wetland areas are N
D
in properly functioning physical condition H
E
A
The BLM has developed standards and guidelines appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. LT
H
for rangeland health by state or region based on A
• Standard 3. Ecological Processes: Healthy, S
S
the fundamentals of rangeland health described E
productive, and diverse plant and animal SS
in the Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR M
populations and communities appropriate to E
subpart 4180). The standards provide a measure N
T
soil, climate, and landform are supported by A
to determine land health and help the BLM, N
ecological processes of nutrient cycling, energy D
public land users, and others focus on a common E
V
flow, and the hydrologic cycle. A
understanding of acceptable resource conditions. L
U
A
The guidelines provide methods for working • Standard 4. Water Quality: Surface water and T
IO
together to improve the health of the public lands. groundwater quality, influenced by agency N
P
To determine whether standards are being met, actions, complies with State water quality RO
C
the BLM conducts a land health assessment (LHA) standards. E
S
S
to characterize the status of resource conditions. IN
• Standard 5. Native, T&E [threatened and O
The staff conducts the LHA by gathering, R
endangered], and Locally Important Species: E
G
synthesizing, and interpreting information O
Habitats support healthy, productive, and N
from observations or data from inventories and
diverse populations and communities of
monitoring. The BLM then evaluates the resource
native plants and animals (including special
conditions in the LHA relative to the land health
status species and species of local importance)
standards and guidelines (BLM 2001). The staff
appropriate to soil, climate, and landform.
conducts a land health evaluation (LHE) to
analyze and interpret the findings in the LHA and The BLM incorporates multiple methodologies,
determine the degree of achievement of land such as the assessment, inventory, and monitoring
health standards. The evaluation compares each (AIM) strategy (Toevs et al. 2011; Kachergis et al.
site to its potential or capability. 2020) and the sage-grouse habitat assessment
TECHNICAL NOTE 452 1
framework (HAF) (Stiver et al. 2015), into the LHA 2015). The original application of TBMs in
and LHE process. The State of Oregon adopted a developing Candidate Conservation Agreements
N
O
G methodology using threat-based models (TBMs) with Assurances for sage-grouse on private lands
E
OR (also called simplified state-and-transition models) has since expanded to include lands administered
N
S I to assess sagebrush ecosystem condition and by the BLM in Oregon (USFWS 2014).
S
E sage-grouse habitat on private lands (SageCon
C
O
R
P
N
O
TI
A
U
L
A
V
E
D
N
A
T
N
E
M
S
S
E
S
S
A
H
T
L
A
E
H
D
N
A
L
M
L
B
E
H
T
N
K I
R
O
W
E
M
A
R
F
L
E
D
O
M
D
E
S
A
B
T-
A
E
R
H
T
E
H
T
F
O
N
O
TI
A
C
LI
P
P
A
2 TECHNICAL NOTE 452
A
P
P
L
IC
A
T
Objectives and Scope IO
N
O
F
T
H
Conducting an LHA and LHE is labor intensive, (BLM 2015), some partners in Oregon have raised E
T
H
and the ecological concepts addressed are concerns about the implementation of the HAF R
E
A
complex and can be difficult to convey to a broad and its application to grazing permit renewals and T
-B
audience, including BLM permittees, stakeholder authorizations of other uses in areas designated as A
S
E
groups, and other agencies. It can also be difficult sage-grouse habitat. D
M
to communicate the connection between the O
D
E
results of these evaluations and any management While BLM policy addresses many of these L
F
recommendations they contain for modifications concerns, in 2016 an interagency group RA
M
to existing land use authorizations, restoration determined the need to explore the applicability E
W
actions, or monitoring. and utility of incorporating TBMs into the LHA and O
R
K
LHE process to address other concerns. The group IN
The use of multiple assessment methodologies designed a pilot study to investigate the potential TH
E
has been confusing to some stakeholders, role of TBMs in the LHA/LHE process for a grazing B
L
M
especially when the BLM first implemented those allotment containing sage-grouse habitat in Lake L
A
methodologies. In addition, since the release of County, Oregon. This report focuses primarily N
D
the BLM’s Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved on the upland standards (1, 3, and 5) and the H
E
A
Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARMPA) assessment portion of the process. LT
H
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
A
N
D
E
V
A
L
U
A
T
IO
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
IN
O
R
E
G
O
N
TECHNICAL NOTE 452 3
N
O
G
E
R
O
N Methods
S I
S
E
C
O
R
N P Pilot Study Location
O
TI
A
U The pilot study focused on the 54,037-acre interdisciplinary team completed the LHE for the
L
VA O’Keeffe allotment in the BLM’s Lakeview District O’Keeffe allotment in 1999 and updated it in 2017.
E
D in south-central Oregon (figure 1). The allotment
N
A
T contains 16 pastures and several grazing Threat-Based Model Assessment
N
ME exclosures. The BLM manages 51,442 acres of Methods
S
S the allotment, and the remaining 2,595 acres are
E
S
S privately owned. We selected this allotment for the TBMs help identify and prioritize management
A
H
T pilot study due to the timing of the grazing permit actions to address the primary threats to the
L
A
E renewal, currently available data, and enrollment sagebrush ecosystem: wildfire, invasive annual
H
D of the allotment in a Candidate Conservation grasses, and juniper encroachment (Johnson
N
A
L Agreement in 2013. The BLM’s Lakeview District et al. 2019b). TBMs encompass a framework of
M
L
B
E
H
T
N
K I O'Keeffe Allotment
R
O Lakeview District
W
District Boundaries
E Washington
M State Boundary
A
R Bureau of Land Management
F
EL U.S. Forest Service
D
O National Park Service
M
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
D
E Bureau of Indian Affairs
S Vale District
BA Other Federal
AT- State NOorrtehgwonest
RE Local Government District
H
T Private/Unknown Prineville Idaho
E District
H
T
F
O
N
O
TI
A
C
LI
P
P
A Roseburg
Burns
District
Coos Bay District
District
Lakeview
District
Medford
District
California N
Nevada
W E
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,
reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use 0 20 40 80 120 160
with other data. Original data were compiled from various sources and may Miles
be updated without notification. S
Figure 1. Pilot study area location within the BLM Lakeview District, Oregon.
4 TECHNICAL NOTE 452