Priority Setting for Whitebark Pine Conservation Melissa Jenkins Flathead NF Silviculturist, CCE Hi5 Working Group U.S. Co-Chair, WPEF BOD
Priority Setting for WhitebarkPine ConservationMelissa Jenkins
Flathead NF Silviculturist, CCE Hi5 Working Group U.S. Co-Chair, WPEF BOD
Integrative and Adaptive Process
Plans In Development
• Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes
• Crown of the Continent
• National Park Service
Whitebark Pine
Leadership Summit
2017
Jenkins, et al.
2005
Pacific
Northwest
USFS
2008
Greater
Yellowstone
Area
2011
Bureau of Land
Management
20162012
Range-Wide
Strategy
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
Range-Wide Strategy Prioritization Criteria By Spatial Scale
Range
Region
Forest
Landscape
Stand
Tree
Pacific Northwest, USFS (2008)
• Preserving genetic diversity at the
eco-region scale is a unifying
principle
Pacific Northwest, USFS (2008)
• Grizzly bear habitat areas given top priority
• Local experts used forest health and
condition data (recent fires, mpb activity,
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
Pacific Northwest, USFS (2008)
• Wilderness Areas or areas with
similar designation excluded
from prioritization process
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 2007.
• Standardized and objective approach
using health and condition data
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
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
Categorized Summary of Prioritization Criteria
Ecosystem Services Provided
Valuable Assets
Likelihood of Success
Risk of Loss
Existing Losses
Opportunity
Feasibility
Priority
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
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 midden densities needed by grizzly bears
• Native American traditional use and spiritual sites
• Whitebark pine plantations
• Mature, cone-producing trees/stands
• Recreation sites with whitebark pine
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 whitebark will
compete well
• Aspect, topography, soils conducive to
survival and growth
• Good distribution/connectivity
• Genetic Refugia- Mahalovich research
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-
12 km
• Low Whitebark BA- < 1000 cones /ha,
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
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
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
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?
Should Prioritize Criteria By Spatial Scale?
Range Wide
Region
Forest
Landscape
Stand
Tree
GB Habitat,
% BR Infection
MPB Mortality, Crown
Fire Potential
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
Range Wide Strategy Example
Core Area Scale?
Should the criteria be weighted by importance?Would weights differ by stakeholder?
Prioritization Item Weight Rating Score
Grizzly Bear Habitat 20 1 20
% BR Infection/Mortality 10 2 20
Presence of High Value Assets 20 1 20
MPB Mortality 10 0 0
Loss from Stand Replacing Fire 10 0 0
Future Climate Adaptability 20 1 20
Age Class Distribution 5 2 10
Score (weight x rating) 90
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, 6200-6799’ = 1, >6200 = 0
Age Class Distribution: >75% in mature = 2, >50% mature = 1, < 49% mature = 0
Core Area
Prioritization-
Broad Scale
Example
Should the criteria be weighted by importance?
PNW Strategy, 2008
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
Existing Losses
Opportunity
Feasibility
Priority
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,
moderate limb mortality
2 3
WPBR extensive mortality (tree or limb) in cone-bearing trees
and reproduction
0 5
Root rot (any species) or twig beetles 3 1
Stand Damage Agent Score 0–25 0–25
BLM Strategy, 2016
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?
“The true meaning of life is to plant
trees under whose shade you do not
plan to sit.”
--Nelson Henderson