Draft
April 23 Meeting Notes – Portland, Oregon
Habitat/Biodiversity Metrics at Multiple Scales and Across Jurisdictions
rd
Attendees:
Paul Adamus - Adamus Resource Assessment
Steve Buttrick, Garth Fuller - The Nature Conservancy
Bobby Cochran, Nicole Maness - Willamette Partnership
Frank Davis - National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, U.C. Santa Barbara
Bob Deal - PNW Research Station, Forest Service
Emily Dietrich - Portland State University, Institute for Sustainable Solutions
Don Faber-Langendoen - Nature Serve
Shauna Ginger, Steve Zylstra – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jimmy Kagan – Oregon Biodiversity Information Center –Institute for Natural Resources
Art Martin – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Gregg Servheen – Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Nikola Smith – Ecosystem Services Specialist, Forest Service
David Smith – The Other Firm
Sara Vickerman, Kassandra Kelly, Christina Skirvin, Peregrine Edison-Lahm – Defenders of Wildlife
Measuring Up Report Summary – Nicole Maness, Willamette Partnership
Ecosystem Crediting Platform – Bobby Cochran, Willamette Partnership
Oak, Floodplain, Sage Metrics – Christina Skirvin, Defenders of Wildlife
Discussion:
 Application of habitat metrics should be part of broader monitoring program
 Need a network of benchmark sites (to be monitored over a long period of time) – to then tease apart what
effective management is
 Different metrics may or may not be needed for compliance markets and outcome based payments,
depending on the costs and need for documentation
 Priority site selection process is not trivial, but is important for steering investments to important
conservation lands
 The Ecosystem Crediting Platform accommodates a range of values, eg. habitat, water quality
 When releasing metrics, pay attention to version control to avoid distorting results based on the instrument,
not ecological change. For new metrics, anticipate changes, release at v. 99.
 Metrics should be incorporated into Conservation Measures Partnership, using common language, indicators,
etc. consistent with Open Standards
Nature Serve presentation on Ecological Integrity Measures – Don Faber-Langendoen




Consistent approach across scales
Key to metric success is the consistent management of them
Standard Classification Units for Land Cover:
o Formation (30 in North America)
o Division (80 in North America)
o Macrogroup (~300 in North America)
Level 1 & 2 assessments are more general assessments (and can more easily be standardized); Level 3
assessments are much harder to standardize widely because more detail about a particular site is captured here
(the specific abiotic and biotic qualities of the site)




All levels measure landscape (context and size), vegetation (condition), hydrology, and soils; however, Level 3
is less of a landscape assessment, more depth in vegetation, hydrology and soils
Landscape Condition Model – single index
For Level 2 assessments, it is suggested the project site be no larger than 50 acres
On the more general assessments (Level 1), a score can be produced using remote sensing technology
Frank Davis, Director of National Center on Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, U.C. Santa Barbara



Ecological processes depend on spatial patterns
Edge effects – isolation, fragmentation
Process for landscape scale planning:
Goal setting  Assessment  Developing strategies  Adaptive implementation & monitoring



Defining goals (a community vision) for a site is the hardest part – determining tradeoffs, alternative futures
Collaborative planning process is messy and takes time but the long run benefits of going through this
mess/complication in the end will lead to a more efficient, widely accepted product (rather than a top-down,
forced product, or a product that didn’t bring all affected parties to the table)
Barriers, objections raised my participants (conservation is opportunistic, data don’t exist, don’t trust
computers, bored) can be overcome with carefully managed process
Tools/more information:
“Conservation planning: Shaping the Future” by Lance Craighead
“Models for planning wildlife conservation in large landscapes” by Millspaugh and Thompson
“Landscape-scale indicators of biodiversity's vulnerability to climate change” - journal article
1000minds.com – Discover people’s preferences
Whatifinc.biz – Evaluate alternative futures
Bayarealands.org – an example of a successful project that brought all these tools together
Marinemap.org – great case study
ESRI – conservation plan, bottom up
Group discussion on proposal, draft agreement, institutional questions:





Getting landscape-scale measures into the metrics – by state doesn’t work, ecoregions are better
o Landscape Conservation Cooperatives have tried to do this and they do a good job of highlighting
the bigger picture (resources, priorities) and data management, but only the top tier is addressed
Aim for a more generic landscape assessment – look for more general measures, these can be the landscape
indicators
Incorporating in human activity in the measures is important, and we have a lot of data here
Important to communicate incentives for use
o Incentives for ALL parties impacted
o Incentives include: data capture, data management and the management of a system, long-run
conservation benefits, cost efficiencies, avoiding unnecessary regulation (sage grouse listing)
Bring more partners to the table, not just agencies (landowners, private businesses, NGOs and groups from
the real estate, agriculture, and energy worlds) – representatives from these different areas could serve in
advisory roles
There is a lot of value in having a diverse group of agencies, non-profits, academics, and businesses
sign on to the agreement together
Markets may come, they do serve a purpose
o There are economic incentives for markets
o The challenge is how siloed the regulators are
National reporting framework for the metrics is important – needs to be different for market activity
Metrics/program can’t be too complicated or they won’t be used
If we do this right now, there’s a huge efficiency in information download, information gathering, formatting
Messaging is important – building a consistent framework is an opportunity, not a constraint
Long-term management of this data would provide a lot of efficiencies and cost savings
It would be best if this was effort was led by, implemented, and managed by a consortium of non-profits
(non-partisan) – NatureServe could take a lead role – instead of the agencies
o If one agency takes the lead then other agencies tend to back away or not see the effort as a priority
o If non-profit leads, then all agencies can give $ to fund
o There’s less bureaucracy, this would make a program more efficient and could likely happen faster
Potential benefits: conservation outcomes achieved, creation of jobs, money saved, creates certainty
Make a clear, articulate statement of what added value this brings - quantify success so others can understand
Don’t highlight that this is just a data collection/management tool
Need to figure out how these metrics are audited/accredited (otherwise why should they be taken seriously?)
It would be important to have multiple agencies sign on to collaboratively work together to get this going
nation-wide, but it is very important to have the right representatives from the agencies at the table
Education important for all staff levels in the agencies, (not just leadership or field staff) is really important
for adoption to take place
Create a marketing plan tailored to each agency and group to get them onboard
The draft agreement outlines the actions but doesn’t answer the question “so what?” –
Include cost estimates for a program (likely that will be a question in everyone’s mind)
Focus on voluntary aspects of biodiversity – not just regulated requirements
o
















