U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Production services provided by: Bureau of Land Management National Operations Center Division of Resource Services Information and Publishing Services P.O. Box 25047 Denver, CO 80225-0047 Copies available online at www.blm.gov Published October 2010 BLM/OC/ST-10/002+1636 R A P ID E C O R E G IO N A L A S S E S S M E N T o f t h e N o r t h e r n B a s in a n d R a n g e a n d S n a k e R iv e r P la in 2 U.S. Department of the Interior 0 0 Bor'-Jl>orund M.tn~~n, 9 i 9 0 0 2 n ai Pl r e v Ri e k a n S d n a e g n a R d n a n si a B n r e h t r o N e h t of T N E M S S E S S A L A N O GI E R O C E D PI A R SUGGESTED CITATION: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Rapid ecological assessment of the Northern Basin and Range and Snake River Plain. BLM/OC/ST-10/002+1636. Denver, CO. 43pp. ii PREFACE R A P ID E C O R E In 2007, the Bureau of Land Management rapid ecological assessment of the northern G (BLM) established the Oregon/Idaho/Nevada Great Basin. This rapid assessment would be IO N Cooperative Shrub-Steppe Restoration conducted within an approximately 18-month A L Partnership in response to the BLM’s Healthy period using readily available data. Given these A S S Lands Initiative (HLI). The primary purpose of the parameters and the initial objectives identified, E S S HLI and the Partnership is to enable BLM to set the rapid assessment would help provide a M E land treatment priorities across a broader scale better understanding of the location and scale of N T and unite land management agencies, private current threats to sagebrush habitats on public o landowners, and other partners in an effort to lands in the northern Great Basin. It would also f th e protect, enhance, and restore sagebrush habitats assist in prioritizing focus areas for protection N o on a landscape scale. Through HLI, funding and the effective scale of treatments to protect, r t h was provided for large landscape projects that enhance, and restore sagebrush habitats. e r n included matching contributions from partners. B a The Partnership’s priorities have been to protect This rapid assessment is a coarse-scale snapshot s in large intact sagebrush habitats, enhance in time and additional work will be required to a n these habitats, and lastly, restore degraded improve the resolution, particularly of cheatgrass d R habitats. In addition, the Partnership is focusing and juniper. In addition, state and field offices will an g management actions on areas that are at risk and need to use existing local data to “step down” the e a have conditions with a high likelihood of success. assessment (i.e., establish ecoregional direction) n d to provide additional consideration to such other S n a Given previous restoration work over the past resource values as aquatics and high-priority k e 20 years within the Great Basin and Snake River obligate species. This rapid assessment provides R iv Plains, BLM managers recognized that given a baseline to compare values, conditions, and e r P limited resources, the extent of sagebrush management priorities to other ecoregions, la habitat, the scale of threats or change agents as well as provides local decisionmakers with in 2 occurring on public lands, and the effectiveness preliminary information to plan, analyze, and 0 0 9 of existing management strategies, a larger implement management actions within a regional assessment of sagebrush habitat was regional context. The assessment may be viewed needed. Initial objectives for this assessment as an iterative process to better understand involved mapping several ecological/resource and align natural resource management at the values and change agents, including: the current national, regional, and local scales. extent of sagebrush, juniper, and salt desert shrub; sagebrush-juniper interface; location of The northern Great Basin rapid ecological greater sage-grouse habitat; location of mule assessment was a pilot project for the BLM. Future deer winter range; location of large wildfires; and assessments may differ slightly in format and may extent of cheatgrass (and potential for cheatgrass be more extensive, building upon the foundation to expand). provided by this inintial rapid assessment. In 2008, the Partnership expanded to also include Utah and California and initiated a iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS R A P ID E C O R E The initial ideas and concepts that came Additional Technical Support and Guidance G together in the genesis of the Rapid Ecoregional (including, but not limited to): Adair Muth, IO N Assessment of the Northern Basin and Range and Aden Seidlitz, Al Burch, Alan Harkness, Amy A L Snake River Plain (hereafter, Northern Great Basin Krause, Angela Zahniser, Barbara Hill, Bill Dragt, A S S or NGB) were the product of two main groups, the Bill Merhege, Bob Bewley, Bob Hopper, Bud E S S Oregon/Idaho/Nevada Cooperative Shrub-Steppe Cribley, Cara Meinke, Carol Anne Murray, Carol M E Restoration Partnership and the BLM’s Healthy Spurrier, Cindy-Lou McDonald, Craig Mackinnon, N T Land Initiative (HLI) Conservation Policy Team. Curtis Warrick, Dan Lechefsky, Danielle Flynn, o The assessment itself was governed by a board Dave Schafersman, David Woodworth, Deb f th e of directors, conducted by a team of BLM staff Rawhouser, Dennis Zachman, Don Banks, Don N o and contractors, lead by a project manager, and Ellsworth, Don Major, Don Simpson, Doug r t h advised by a broad ad-hoc network of technical Havlina, Doug Herrema, Douglas Shinneman, e r n and policy experts, scientists, and BLM deputy Duane Dippon, Dwight Fielder, Ed Roberson, B a state directors. This is particularly noteworthy Elizabeth Araki, Elroy Masters, Geoffrey Walsh, s in because participation was voluntary and was George Buckner, Gerard McMahon, Gordon Toevs, a n almost without exception an additional duty Harvey Gates, Herb Arnold, Howard Hedrick, d R that participants embraced. People gave of their Jack Hamby, James Caswell, James Omernik, an g time, knowledge, and creativity because they felt Jeff Rose, Jenna Sloan, Jerry Magee, Jerry e a this was the right thing to do and they sincerely Sempek, Jesse Juen, Jim Alegria, Jim Dryden, n d wanted to make a difference. Acknowledgments Jim Renthal, John Christensen, Josh Hansen, S n a and gratitude are due to everyone involved Karla Mayne, Kathy Radigan, Kit Muller, Krista k e along every step of the way and to the families Gollnick, Lara Juliusson, Lauren Maske, Leonard R iv and loved ones who supported this effort even Gore, Libby Smith, Linda Mazzu, Lynda Boody, e r P though it often meant late hours and time away Marty Griffith, Matt Bobo, Matthew Higdon, la from home. Megan Kram, Michael Eberle, Michael Tupper, in 2 Mike DeArmond, Mike Holbert, Mike “Sherm” 0 0 9 Board of Directors: Joe Tague, Jon Foster, Miles Karl, Mike Mottice, Mike Pellant, Nora Devoe, Paul Brown, and Verlin Smith Makela, Paul Roush, Penny Mabie, Peter Doran, Renee Dana, Richard Mayberry, Rick Miller, Rick Assessment Team: Bruce Durtsche, Chris Benson, Tholen, Rob Roudabush, Robert Bolton, Robert Guy Kowalski, and Imogene Bump Hopper, Robin Sell, Ron Huntsinger, Roxanne Falise, Sandra Brewer, Sandra S. Brooks, Sandra Project Management Team: Travis Haby, Dan Meyers, Sandy Gregory, Scott Cooke, Scott Davis, Muller, and Frank Quamen Sean Finn, Signe Sather-Blair, Steve Knick, Steve Madsen, Steve Smith, Steven Hartmann, Susan Publishing Services Team: Janine Koselak and Giannettino, Ted Milesnick, Tim Bottomley, Tom Linda Hill Chatfield, Tom Pogacnik, Tom Rinkes, Vanessa Stepanek, Victor Lozano. EnviroIssues edited the semifinal versions of this document. Harris IT provided geospatial support for the assessment. v CONTENTS R A P ID E C O R E INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1 G IO Purpose......................................................................................... 1 N A L Rapid Ecoregional Assessments.................................................................. 1 A S S Management Questions ......................................................................... 2 E S S M Sagebrush and Cheatgrass Conversion........................................................... 2 E N Juniper and Juniper Expansion (Sagebrush-Juniper Interface)..................................... 3 T o f t Salt Desert Shrub and Cheatgrass Conversion .................................................... 3 h e N Greater Sage-Grouse and Habitat Loss ........................................................... 3 o r t h Mule Deer and Habitat Loss...................................................................... 4 e r n METHODS......................................................................................... 5 B a s Assessment Area ................................................................................ 5 in a n Overall Rapid Ecoregional Assessment Approach and Design ..................................... 6 d R a Data Themes .................................................................................... 6 n g e Risk Exposure Quantification and Risk Estimation................................................15 a n d RESULTS..........................................................................................17 S n a k DISCUSSION......................................................................................25 e R Assumptions and Limitations ...................................................................26 ive r P Regional to Local Level Ecoregional Direction and Implementation...............................27 la in Conclusion.....................................................................................27 2 0 0 9 LITERATURE CITED................................................................................29 APPENDICES .....................................................................................33 Appendix 1. NGB Rapid Ecoregional Assessment Model Data Sources.............................33 Appendix 2. Land Cover Sources for Plant Communities of Concern...............................34 Appendix 3. Data Combinations for All Raw Data Used in the Assessment Model .................37 Appendix 4. Land Cover Data Quality Report ....................................................41 vii