Assessing big sagebrush at multiple spatial scales : an example in southeast Oregon PDF
Preview Assessing big sagebrush at multiple spatial scales : an example in southeast Oregon
BLM LIBRARY ng Sagebrush Big at Multiple Spatial Scales: 4/ £*. / Ifgrpai Js>-ll 10* An Example Southeast Oregon in WM QK 495 .C74 K375 2005 c.2 Technical Note 417 2005 August Production services provided by: BLM National Science and Technology Center Branch of Publishing Services Copies available from: BLM National Business Center Printed Materials Distribution Service, BC-652 P.O. Box 25047 Denver, Colorado 80225-0047 Fax: 303-236-0845 E-mail: [email protected] TN417 BLM/ST/ST-05/001+4400 m -< & &&0WD4H ftK. Assessing Big Sagebrush iX at Multiple Spatial Scales: An Example in Southeast Oregon \ Technical Note 417 August 2005 &* By Mike "Sherm" Karl A* Inventory and Monitoring Specialist # Bureau of Land Management # # National Science and Technology Center c«S> #£&t+ A>* Denver, Colorado Jon Sadowski Wildlife Biologist Bureau of Land Management Vale District Jordan Resource Area Vale, Oregon August 2005 Suggested citation: Karl, M. and J. Sadowski. 2005. Assessing big sagebrush at multiple spatial scales: An example in southeast Oregon. Technical Note 417. BLM/ST/ST-05/001+4400. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. 41 pp. Acknowledgments The synthesis of thought presented in this exam- Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ple has been influenced greatly by the concepts WaltVan Dyke of wildlife habitat management promoted in Jim Lemos (retired) Oregon by Jack Ward Thomas, Chris Maser, and Jerry Farstvedt (retired) Ralph Anderson. Their practical ideas about Bill Olson (retired) wildlife habitat in managed forests and range- Jack Melland (retired) lands were adapted for this management archi- tecture and they are respectfully acknowledged. The Nature Conservancy t: Alan Sands Thanks to the following BLM coworkers and indi- viduals outside BLM who were consulted in the U.S. Forest Service formulation of this management strategy for the Mary Rowland Southeast Oregon Resource Management Plan or Mike Wisdom who provided review comments or photos that improved the content of this document: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rich Howard Bureau of Land Management Fred Taylor (now with Bureau of IndianAffairs) U.S. Geological Survey Jan Hanf Steve Knick Todd Thompson Al Bammann (retired) Agricultural Research Service JerryTaylor Jon Bates (supplied photos) Jim May (retired) Geoff Middaugh Izaak Walton League George Buckner Monty Montgomery Doug Powell JackWenderoth Grouse, Inc. Cynthia Tait Clait Braun Marisa Meyer (nowwith U.S. Fish andWildlife Service) Steve Christensen Idaho Department of Fish and Game Tom Forre Jack Connelly Tom Miles Jean Findley Oregon State University Richard Mayberry John Crawford Bob Kindschy (retired) Richard Miller Signe Sather-Blair Terry Rich (nowwith U.S. Fish andWildlife Service) Mike Pellant m Allan Thomas (retired) Judy Nelson (retired) Erick Campbell (retired) Susan Giannettino Craig MacKinnon -: - Table of Contents Acknowledgments i Abstract 1 Introduction 3 Assessment Process 5 Define Assessment Scales 5 Create Canopy Cover Classes 5 Class 1 : No Sagebrush Canopy Cover (Grassland) 6 Class 2: Trace to 5 Percent Sagebrush Canopy Cover (Grassland) 8 Class 3: Greater than 5 Percent to 15 Percent Sagebrush Canopy Cover (Shrubland) 8 Class 4: Greater than 1 5 Percent to 25 Percent Sagebrush Canopy Cover (Shrubland) 9 Class 5: Greater than 25 Percent Sagebrush Canopy Cover (Shrubland) 10 Make Mid-Scale Assessments 10 Place Mid-Scale Conditions in the Context of Broad-Scale Findings 10 Determine Mid-Scale Objectives 15 Identify Mid-Scale Geographic ManagementAreas 15 Determine Mid-Scale Geographic ManagementArea Objectives 17 Make Fine-Scale Determinations 18 Determine Fine-Scale, Pasture-Level Objectives 18 Evaluate Achievement of Oregon's Rangeland Health Standard 5 18 Determine Site (Local, Within Pasture) Subclasses 24 Subclasses for Class 1 24 Subclasses for Class 2 26 Subclasses for Class 3 29 Subclasses for Class 4 30 Subclasses for Class 5 31 Summary ofAssessment Steps and Results 35 References Cited 39 \ Abstract This technical note describes how big sagebrush pasture) levels. The scales are interrelated and habitats {Artemisia tridentata, including played equally important roles in building man- Wyoming, basin, and mountain subspecies) are agement objectives. Big sagebrush canopy cover being assessed and managed at multiple spatial structural classes were created, which were the .-Jff-A scales within a Bureau of Land Management basic building blocks of the sagebrush objectives resource area in southeast Oregon. It shows how and which addressed spatial patterning of habi- the assessment results can be used to make tat structure, connectivity, and fragmentation, as determinations pertaining to standards and well as the cumulative effects of disturbance guidelines for greater sage-grouse and other from fires and land treatments. Findings from animals that use sagebrush habitats. In this the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem example, the assessment included information at Management Project and more local information the broad-scale (Interior Columbia Basin from the Jordan Resource Area of BLM's Vale Ecosystem Management Project; 145 million District were used to guide development of acres), mid-scale (Southeast Oregon Resource mid-scale big sagebrush habitat objectives. This Management Plan-Final Environmental Impact example provides other BLM field offices in the Statement; 4.6 million acres, and Louse Canyon sagebrush biome with ideas for how they might Geographic ManagementArea; 0.52 million develop their own multiple-scale big sagebrush acres), fine-scale (pasture; less than 2,000 to assessment to achieve land use plan objectives 88,000 acres), and site- or local-scale (ecological and rangeland health standards. site; variable in size but typically smaller than
The list of books you might like
