Rapid Measurement of Ecological IntegrityMay 10, 2012

Measuring Habitat/Biodiversity Outcomes Across Jurisdictions

and Scales[ ]

A broad partnership is developing tools to

address:• Measuring aspects of

biodiversity condition

• Metrics for tracking biodiversity outcomes

• Consistent approach

• Practical design

• Sharing of tools and data

Key questions for establishing habitat

metricsQuestion Assessment approach Characteristics

1. What habitats exist?Ecological systems and National Vegetation Classification (US NVC)

• FGDC standard• Used by states, feds and NGOs• Systematic hierarchy of types

2. Which ones are targets for action?

Relative significance of habitats or populations (e.g., proportion of known habitat at site, GRank)

• Provide context for choosing among sites

• Efficient targeting of scarce resources

3. How are they faring?• Ecological Integrity

Assessment (EIA)• Landscape Condition

• Multiple spatial scales• Multiple scales of effort• Consistent between levels

4. What actions are needed to achieve goals?

EIA stressors that can be managed on the ground Same as #3

5. Are these actions working? EIA monitoring framework • Scale effort to mgmt need

• Designed with goals in mind

United States

7 biomes

47 ecoregions

826 ecological systems

191 macrogroups (NVC)

Nested hierarchy of ecological units

Terrestrial ecological systems and land cover of the coterminous US, map

produced by NatureServe

Users of Ecological Systems and USNVC Classifications

Which ones are targets for action?(examples)

Wetlands (mitigation)

Priority ecosystems and habitats for regulated species (planning and mitigation)

Longleaf pine forests; fire stressed ecosystems (restoration)

Habitats on state wildlife management areas (restoration and planning)

How are they faring?Ecological integrity

• The ability of an ecological system to support and maintain a community of organisms that has species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to those of natural habitats within a region

• Define goals and objectives related to ecological integrity for:1. Land management2. Restoration and mitigation3. Conservation metrics

Ecological integrity

Adapted from Faber-Langendoen et al. 2008

Rank A

Rank B

Rank C

Rank D

Increasing disturbance

Incr

easi

ng

eco

log

ical

in

teg

rity

Excellent integrity – A rank

• Highest quality sites

• Unfragmented landscape

• Landscape area larger than minimum dynamic area

• Exemplary size (e.g., area-dependent species)

• Biotic/abiotic components well within natural range of variability

• Invasives largely absent

• Natural processes in place

Poor integrity – D rank

• Severely altered characteristics

• Highly fragmented

• Landscape well below minimum dynamic area

• Size is small, e.g. unable to sustain area-dependent species.

• Biotic/abiotic components severely altered from natural range of variability

• Invasives abundant

Setting Ecological Integrity Goals

Rank A

Rank B

Rank C

Rank D

Increasing human disturbance

Incr

easi

ng

eco

log

ical

in

teg

rity

Ecosystem Conservation Goal

Ecological Integrity Monitoring

Level 1) Remote assessment

Level 2) Rapid field assessment

Level 3) Intensive assessment

Overall components of ecological integrity

assessmentLevel 1

Remote Sensing Assessment

ID reference sitesLandscape context metricsSupplement status & trend

plots

Level 3Intensive

AssessmentVerify reference sites

Condition metricsSample design, S&T

plots

Level 2Rapid Assessment Verify reference sites

Condition & buffer metrics

StressorsSupplement S&T plots

Level 1: Remote assessment

Landscape context – Connectivity, surrounding land use, patch size, and stressors

Level 1: Remote assessment

Level 2: Rapid field assessment

Landscape characteristicsVegetation cover and compositionSoil conditionDisturbance regimesWildlife abundance and compositionStressorsCalibration of remote techniques

Level 2: Rapid field assessment

Photo plots as example

1957 2006

Level 3: Intensive assessment

Level 3: Intensive assessment

Landscape characteristics

Vegetation cover and composition

Soil condition

Disturbance regimes

Wildlife abundance and composition

Stressors

Calibration of remote and rapid techniques

Steps to Implementation

• Conduct assessment of current condition to determine ecological integrity

• Identify limiting factors

• Choose goal desired for site

• Determine desired ecological conditions to meet the Ecological Integrity goal

• Establish relevant Tier 1-3 monitoring design based on desired conditions

• Collect data – conduct evaluation

Ongoing partnerships to test and implement EIAs

Wetlands restoration and measuring changes in wetlands nationally

Assessment of habitat condition and management of ecosystem stressors

Management and restoration of longleaf pine ecosystems; fire management nationwide

Define conservation goals and measure management effectiveness

Application of Ecological Integrity

Monitoring and EvaluationExamples from State of Washington

• WDFW Grazing Program

• WDFW Wildlife Areas – Habitat Conservation Plans

• State Wildlife Action Plan

• EPA wetland condition assessments

• Biodiversity Monitoring

• Citizen Science

Working in partnership, we can realize these benefits…

Benefit Mechanism

1. Reduced cost • Don’t re-invent the wheel• Scale level of effort to resources and mgmt need

2. Easier to communicate • Consistent approach• Common tools and models

3. Adaptive management • Monitoring flows from EIA goals• Results linked to management objectives

4. Inform climate change adaptation

• Assessment can include climate stressors

5. Report outcomes to investors • Demonstrate results for specific metrics• Show advancement towards desired condition• Increase transparency

6. Job creation • Improve public confidence in restoration and mitigation by businesses – reducing delays

• Grow constituencies for effective public sector management